ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — July 2024

The Tribunal decided that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material seized during the search. In the absence of such material for cash and cheque deposits, disallowances of business expenses, commission income, and advances for property purchase, the additions were deleted. The Tribunal allowed grounds challenging the jurisdiction for these additions. However, regarding investments in shares and capital gains, additions were sustained as they were based on loose sheets seized during the search, and the assessees failed to provide any information or details to explain these. Consequently, the assessment orders for certain assessment years were partly confirmed, and for others, they were quashed or allowed in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the land, held from 2007 to 2012, should be considered a long-term capital asset. It also found that the disallowed expenses towards cost of acquisition and revocation of Banakhat right were not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence. It also upheld the deletion of additions related to unexplained capital and cash creditors, as these were covered by previous ITAT orders. However, additions related to sale of godowns and extra work receipts were confirmed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee another opportunity to explain the source of the bank deposits before the AO, considering that the assessee now possesses the necessary evidence. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee for her non-cooperative attitude.

The Tribunal decided that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material seized during the search. In the absence of such material for cash and cheque deposits, disallowances of business expenses, commission income, and advances for property purchase, the additions were deleted. The Tribunal allowed grounds challenging the jurisdiction for these additions. However, regarding investments in shares and capital gains, additions were sustained as they were based on loose sheets seized during the search, and the assessees failed to provide any information or details to explain these. Consequently, the assessment orders for certain assessment years were partly confirmed, and for others, they were quashed or allowed in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's judgment in ACIT(E) vs AUDA, set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal decided that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material seized during the search. In the absence of such material for cash and cheque deposits, disallowances of business expenses, commission income, and advances for property purchase, the additions were deleted. The Tribunal allowed grounds challenging the jurisdiction for these additions. However, regarding investments in shares and capital gains, additions were sustained as they were based on loose sheets seized during the search, and the assessees failed to provide any information or details to explain these. Consequently, the assessment orders for certain assessment years were partly confirmed, and for others, they were quashed or allowed in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's judgment in ACIT(E) vs AUDA, set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in light of the Supreme Court's directions.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's judgment in ACIT(E) vs AUDA, set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal decided that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material seized during the search. In the absence of such material for cash and cheque deposits, disallowances of business expenses, commission income, and advances for property purchase, the additions were deleted. The Tribunal allowed grounds challenging the jurisdiction for these additions. However, regarding investments in shares and capital gains, additions were sustained as they were based on loose sheets seized during the search, and the assessees failed to provide any information or details to explain these. Consequently, the assessment orders for certain assessment years were partly confirmed, and for others, they were quashed or allowed in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal decided that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material seized during the search. In the absence of such material for cash and cheque deposits, disallowances of business expenses, commission income, and advances for property purchase, the additions were deleted. The Tribunal allowed grounds challenging the jurisdiction for these additions. However, regarding investments in shares and capital gains, additions were sustained as they were based on loose sheets seized during the search, and the assessees failed to provide any information or details to explain these. Consequently, the assessment orders for certain assessment years were partly confirmed, and for others, they were quashed or allowed in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal decided that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material seized during the search. In the absence of such material for cash and cheque deposits, disallowances of business expenses, commission income, and advances for property purchase, the additions were deleted. The Tribunal allowed grounds challenging the jurisdiction for these additions. However, regarding investments in shares and capital gains, additions were sustained as they were based on loose sheets seized during the search, and the assessees failed to provide any information or details to explain these. Consequently, the assessment orders for certain assessment years were partly confirmed, and for others, they were quashed or allowed in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the rectification order was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the assessee. Furthermore, the order was found to be barred by limitation as it was not passed within the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition for bogus purchases was restricted to 5% by the ITAT and the Revenue did not provide evidence of challenging this decision in a higher forum, the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 5% was justified.

The Tribunal noted that a recent CBDT circular extended the time limit for such applications. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the CIT(E) was directed to consider the fresh application filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that a notice issued to a deceased person is void ab initio, especially when the department is aware of the death and the legal heir's status. Section 159 of the Act does not apply to the initiation of proceedings post-death. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were invalid due to the lack of a valid notice.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not examined the merits of the case and had dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing another opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's claim of agricultural income and the reasons for non-compliance. The appeal was set aside, and the CIT(A) was directed to make preliminary inquiries and decide on admitting the appeal and adjudicating on merits.

The Tribunal found that while the AO might have recorded satisfaction, the disallowance was made mechanically without establishing a causal connection between the expenses and the exempt income. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance, agreeing with the assessee that no expenditure was incurred for earning exempt income.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and file necessary documents to ensure substantial justice.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid taxes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, which was confirmed by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by allowing a reasonable estimate of expenses towards the cost of improvement and granted the benefit of telescoping. Consequently, the penalty levied was also to be disposed of in light of these observations.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. The Tribunal noted that for an addition under Section 68, entries must appear in the assessee's books of account. The AO himself admitted that the entries reflected in the loose papers were not appearing in the assessee's books of account. While the Revenue argued that cash flow should be treated as books of account, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided details in the Paper Book, which were sent to the AO for verification. The AO did not file any remand report or provide further explanation. The Tribunal observed that the cash book did not reflect the material found during the search for the purpose of disclosure under Section 153A. However, the assessee's group's cash book of undisclosed income, submitted during assessment, was considered. The CIT(A) had taken into account that these entries were reflected as part of undisclosed income utilized for tax purposes for other group members. The assessee provided details of cash inflow and outflow related to financing third parties, which were reflected in the ledger account. Therefore, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition, and the Tribunal found no need to interfere. The Revenue's grounds were not sustainable on merit.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by allowing a reasonable estimate of expenses towards the cost of improvement and granted the benefit of telescoping. Consequently, the penalty levied was also to be disposed of in light of these observations.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by allowing a reasonable estimate of expenses towards the cost of improvement and granted the benefit of telescoping. Consequently, the penalty levied was also to be disposed of in light of these observations.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without a remand report from the AO and without allowing the AO an opportunity to examine it. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after obtaining a remand report.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by allowing a reasonable estimate of expenses towards the cost of improvement and granted the benefit of telescoping. Consequently, the penalty levied was also to be disposed of in light of these observations.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision, stating that the AO cannot arbitrarily reject a valuation report that complies with legal provisions. The valuation method adopted by the assessee was found to be legitimate and in accordance with Rule 11UA.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries and the assessee had provided evidence that the transactions were not theirs. The PCIT's reliance solely on the Insight portal without further investigation was deemed insufficient.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus to explain the nature of business, eligibility for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD, and the sources of cash deposits. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the genuine and bona fide reasons presented by the assessee concerning the health and demise of its principal operator. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the adjournment requests and without adjudicating the case on merits. The ex-parte order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's contentions on merits regarding the disallowance were not adequately considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with due opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not err in deleting the addition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's cash sales and deposits in preceding years were significantly higher, and the AO had not rejected the assessee's audited books of accounts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a non-resident, had discharged the primary onus by providing evidence of remittance from his overseas bank account. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication and verification of both legal and merit issues.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was permitted to be withdrawn based on the assessee's written submission.

The tribunal dismissed the ground related to administrative expenses as not pressed. For interest expenses, the tribunal's previous order in the assessee's own case was referenced, suggesting a favorable outcome for the assessee. The tribunal allowed ESOP expenses based on various judicial precedents.

The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide any evidence to sustain the ex-parte addition made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A)'s decision, based on a remand report from the AO, was considered sound, and the Revenue's appeal lacked merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to bona fide reasons. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present their case and evidence.

The tribunal dismissed the ground related to administrative expenses as not pressed. For interest expenses, the tribunal's previous order in the assessee's own case was referenced, suggesting a favorable outcome for the assessee. The tribunal allowed ESOP expenses based on various judicial precedents.

The tribunal dismissed the ground related to administrative expenses as not pressed. For interest expenses, the tribunal's previous order in the assessee's own case was referenced, suggesting a favorable outcome for the assessee. The tribunal allowed ESOP expenses based on various judicial precedents.

The tribunal dismissed the ground related to administrative expenses as not pressed. For interest expenses, the tribunal's previous order in the assessee's own case was referenced, suggesting a favorable outcome for the assessee. The tribunal allowed ESOP expenses based on various judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the lower authorities violated the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the lower authorities violated the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the orders were set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 6.08 crores addition, finding the assessee's retraction of surrender to be substantiated. The Tribunal also restored the issue of rent expenses to the AO for verification and upheld the deletion of excess cash addition.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the lower authorities violated the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to conduct an inquiry into the allowability of depreciation on goodwill, especially given the related party transaction and lack of valuation report, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.