ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — June 2024

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time limit for filing applications for 80G approval until June 30, 2024. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application within this extended period.

The Tribunal acknowledged the delay but noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time limit for such applications to June 30, 2024. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application within this extended period.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time limit for filing applications under Section 80G(5) till 30.06.2024. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application within this extended period.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time limit for filing applications under Section 80G(5)(iii) until June 30, 2024. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application within this extended period.

The Tribunal held that the gain on sale of shares allotted through IPO should be treated as STCG, not business income. It emphasized the principle of consistency and the assessee's treatment of shares as investments.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had expired and that legal heirs were not brought on record despite multiple opportunities. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of guarantee commission, holding that the onus was on the department to prove it was excessive. The Tribunal also directed verification for short credit of TDS and for levy of interest under Section 234A, allowing these grounds for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of business income was not supported by accounts and dismissed the first ground of appeal. However, regarding the addition under Section 50C, the Tribunal found that the DVO's report and the AO's comparison were not suitable and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not consider the totality of the evidence regarding agricultural land holdings and family arrangements for the cash deposits. For other credits, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) disregarded the provided confirmations and sources. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the cash deposits indeed belonged to the firm 'Sambhav Sales' and not the assessee. The addition of accrued interest was also correctly restricted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that CBDT had extended the time limit for such applications till June 30, 2024. Therefore, the assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application within the extended period.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time limit for filing applications under Section 80G(5)(iii) until June 30, 2024. Therefore, the assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application within this extended period.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT had extended the time limit for such applications till June 30, 2024. Therefore, the assessee was granted liberty to make a fresh application within the extended period.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time limit for filing applications under Section 80G(5)(iii) until June 30, 2024. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application within this extended period.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time limit for filing applications for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) until June 30, 2024. Therefore, the assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application within this extended period.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time limit for filing applications for 80G approval until June 30, 2024. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application within this extended period.

The Tribunal noted that a subsequent CBDT circular extended the application deadline to June 30, 2024. Therefore, the assessee was granted liberty to make a fresh application within the extended time.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to April 1, 2016, the DSIR was not required to quantify eligible expenditure for weighted deduction. Therefore, the restriction of deduction based on DSIR's quantification was incorrect.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on WIP, finding that the assessee was a developer and WIP did not belong to it, and that the mercantile system of accounting was consistently followed. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to April 1, 2016, the DSIR was not required to quantify eligible expenditure for weighted deduction. Therefore, the restriction of deduction based on DSIR's quantification was incorrect.

The tribunal noted that the extended time limit made the current appeal infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular extended the time limit for filing fresh applications for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii). Since the assessee intended to file a new application within this extended period, the current appeal became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that filing the return within the time allowed under Section 139(4) (belated return) is sufficient for claiming exemption under Section 11, as per the intent of the law and subsequent amendments. Therefore, the disallowance by the CPC was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) ignored factual aspects that the assessee's books of account, stock registers, and bills for gold and silver jewellery sales were found to be genuine. The cash transactions were also proven to be genuine.

The Tribunal held that the entire leave encashment amount claimed as exempt under Section 10(10AA) should be granted. It reasoned that BSNL was part of the Department of Telecommunication prior to its PSU status, making the proportionate bifurcation by the CIT(A) unjustifiable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict TP adjustment to 0.2%, delete ESOP expense disallowance, and delete Section 14A disallowance as no exempt income was earned.

The Tribunal held that the additions were due to a bonafide mistake in the computation of deemed short-term capital gain, not concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper notice and opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.