ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — September 2024

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for a fresh examination, granting the assessee one more opportunity to prove its claim under Section 54F, subject to a cost of Rs. 1000/-. The AO was directed to proceed as per the previous ITAT directions.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee and passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the lower authorities' orders as the assessee failed to provide proper evidence and explanations. The appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit and non-appearance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the interest of justice. It set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh determination after granting the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide on merits after providing a fresh opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, especially considering the pandemic. The principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity for the assessee to present its case.

During the hearing, no one appeared for the assessee, and a letter of withdrawal was placed on record stating that appeals filed before the National Faceless Appeal Centre were pending. Therefore, the appeals before the ITAT were treated as withdrawn.

During the hearing, no one appeared for the assessee, and a letter of withdrawal was placed on record stating that appeals filed before the National Faceless Appeal Centre were pending. Therefore, the appeals before the ITAT were treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity for the assessee to present their case, especially considering the Covid-19 pandemic period and the assessee's technical limitations. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified as it amounted to a change of opinion. The assessee had provided all necessary details regarding loans and advances during the reassessment proceedings, discharging the burden of proof.

During the hearing, no one appeared for the assessee, and a letter of withdrawal was placed on record stating that appeals filed before the National Faceless Appeal Centre were pending. Therefore, the appeals before the ITAT were treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to exclude the COVID-19 period from the delay calculation and reconsider the appeal on its merits after condoning the delay. The CIT(A) was instructed to provide the assessee a fair opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the AO disallowed the losses based on conjecture without concrete evidence of accommodation entries. The losses were primarily due to the valuation of closing stock, not sham trading. Therefore, the disallowance of losses and proportionate expenses was deleted.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and without adjudicating on the merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and without adjudicating on the merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2014-15 and 2016-17, which in turn relied on the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's judgment in CIT vs. President Industries (258 ITR 654). The principle established is that when unaccounted business receipts are discovered, only the profit element embedded in those receipts should be brought to tax, not the entire amount. The Tribunal emphasized that seized documents containing details of both unaccounted cash receipts and payments must be read in their entirety, and it is not permissible to selectively pick portions. Therefore, only the net income, after adjusting unaccounted payments against unaccounted receipts, should be taxed. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 4,00,31,858/- on account of undisclosed cash receipts, as the CIT(A) correctly applied the law by taxing only the net profit element. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, the additions of Rs. 11,00,000/- for Units 101, 302, and Penthouse were deleted as there was no specific incriminating material found during the search to support these additions. The AO's assumption of on-money receipt based on a general statement and an email was not sufficient. The Tribunal also noted that the on-money for Unit 201 was offered in AY 2014-15, not AY 2011-12, and thus the addition for AY 2011-12 was deleted. Interest under Section 234B for AY 2011-12 was to be recalculated. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2011-12 were deleted as the primary additions were deleted. For AY 2014-15, the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- for Unit No. 201 was upheld, but it was directed that the amount already offered by the assessee (Rs. 10,75,500/-) should be considered, and only the differential amount, if any, should be taxed. The classification of income as business income and the 30% tax rate were upheld. Interest under Section 234B for AY 2014-15 was to be reassessed. Penalty proceedings for AY 2014-15 were upheld, subject to final assessment outcome.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, the additions of Rs. 11,00,000/- for Units 101, 302, and Penthouse were deleted as there was no specific incriminating material found during the search to support these additions. The AO's assumption of on-money receipt based on a general statement and an email was not sufficient. The Tribunal also noted that the on-money for Unit 201 was offered in AY 2014-15, not AY 2011-12, and thus the addition for AY 2011-12 was deleted. Interest under Section 234B for AY 2011-12 was to be recalculated. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2011-12 were deleted as the primary additions were deleted. For AY 2014-15, the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- for Unit No. 201 was upheld, but it was directed that the amount already offered by the assessee (Rs. 10,75,500/-) should be considered, and only the differential amount, if any, should be taxed. The classification of income as business income and the 30% tax rate were upheld. Interest under Section 234B for AY 2014-15 was to be reassessed. Penalty proceedings for AY 2014-15 were upheld, subject to final assessment outcome.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of accounting was consistent and tax-neutral, as CENVAT credit is not a cost until it becomes due and payable. The addition was deleted, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission of corrected quantitative details, certified by a Chartered Accountant, as a new document requiring verification. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions because the partnership firm was non-existent during the assessment year. The transactions were already accounted for and taxed in the hands of the proprietary concern, making the assessment on the dissolved firm void.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without considering the additional evidence filed. Therefore, the matter was remanded back for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the allowance of prior period depreciation was a plausible view and did not cause prejudice to the revenue, thus setting aside the Pr. CIT's order on this issue. However, the Tribunal agreed that the AO failed to examine the TDS on rent expenses, confirming the Pr. CIT's order on this point.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding the cash credits and that the rejection of books of accounts was not in accordance with the law. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT rightly invoked Section 263 as the Assessing Officer failed to consider survey findings and potential misuse of trust funds by trustees. The diversion of funds and bogus salary debits necessitated further verification and potential taxability in the trust's hands.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus of proving the genuineness of the share transaction by providing documentary evidence, banking channel transactions, and a significant holding period. The Revenue failed to provide concrete evidence to prove the transaction was bogus.

The Tribunal held that NPS contributions are regulated by PFRDA Act, 2013, which does not prescribe a specific due date for such payments. Therefore, the adjustment made by the CPC was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity for hearing and did not adjudicate the matter on merits. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after considering the evidences.

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds of appeal. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the additions based on the additional evidence submitted by the assessee which established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans and confirmed the trading nature of the advances.

The Tribunal held that the property sale was by a company, not the assessee, and the Form 26AS entry was a mistake. The PCIT's revision was based on an incorrect understanding of the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity for hearing and did not adjudicate the matter on merits. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after considering the evidences.