ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — November 2024

The Tribunal held that the addition should be restricted to Rs. 18,50,000/- due to a rectification order by the AO reducing the initial amount. The remaining Rs. 18,50,000/- addition was confirmed as the source of cash remained unexplained.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses was partly incorrect due to an erroneous calculation of income tax expenses. For the PF contribution disallowance, the Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) ignored the assessee's submissions and decided to delete the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the cash received in earlier years for the sale of land was demonstrably in the assessee's possession and was subsequently deposited. The Tribunal found no dispute regarding the source of the cash, which was linked to the sale transaction.

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider all the evidence filed by the assessee, including the bank statements, and examine them in accordance with Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's counsel that the assessee was willing to pay 6% of the gross margin instead of 12% as determined by the CIT(A). The profit percentage was directed to be determined at 6% on estimation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiries to prove the purchases were bogus. The assessee had provided documentary evidence for purchases and sales, and payments were made through banking channels.

The Tribunal held that given the assessee's turnover, the small percentage of disallowed expenses, the absence of cash payment allegations, and the CIT(A)'s failure to request further documentation, no disallowance was warranted.

The Tribunal held that provisions of Section 13(1)(b) can only be invoked at the time of assessment and not at the time of granting registration under Section 12A. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided reconciliation statements and relevant evidence explaining the differences between the ledgers. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided reconciliation statements and relevant evidence explaining the differences between the ledgers. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found the assessee's submissions acceptable and that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue by giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition of interest was unsustainable as the assessee had paid interest and not received it. It also held that disallowing interest paid on a loan is not justified as long as the receipt of the loan is not disputed.

The Tribunal found the assessee's submissions acceptable and that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue by giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to the assessee to comply diligently with the notices.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the proceedings to the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund and produce the receipt before the CIT(A) to initiate fresh appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided reconciliation statements and relevant evidence explaining the differences between the ledgers. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission regarding portal issues preventing timely compliance. It agreed to refer the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) passed an order without a remand report. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, referred the matter back to the Assessing Officer to initiate assessment proceedings de novo. The AO was directed to pass an order after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no evidence that the assessee had transacted with the alleged entry providers. The Tribunal noted that the revenue failed to prove its allegations and that the profits declared were from legitimate transactions.

The Tribunal found the assessee's grounds acceptable, particularly the denial of natural justice. It directed the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of being heard and consider the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not consider the bank transactions in their entirety and the action of treating the entire cash deposit as income was incorrect. The matter was set aside to the AO for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that Section 80IA(9) has universal application to all deductions under sub-chapter C of Chapter VI. Therefore, deductions under Section 80HHC would be restricted if the income was already considered for deduction under Section 80IA.

The Tribunal held that Section 80IA(9) has universal application to all deductions under sub-chapter C of Chapter VI. Therefore, deductions under Section 80HHC would be restricted if the income was already considered for deduction under Section 80IA.

The Tribunal held that goodwill created as a result of amalgamation is a depreciable asset, as it came into existence due to the amalgamation itself, not a transfer of an existing asset. The Tribunal also noted that amendments to Section 32, effective from AY 2021-22, do not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that goodwill created as a result of amalgamation is a depreciable asset, as it came into existence due to the amalgamation itself, not a transfer of an existing asset. The Tribunal also noted that amendments to Section 32, effective from AY 2021-22, do not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that goodwill created as a result of amalgamation is a depreciable asset, as it came into existence due to the amalgamation itself, not a transfer of an existing asset. The Tribunal also noted that amendments to Section 32, effective from AY 2021-22, do not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid and bad in law because the Assessing Officer sought to re-examine issues that were already considered and decided during the original assessment without any fresh tangible material. Consequently, the additions made in the reassessment were quashed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the Assessee's appeal. Specific grounds related to depreciation, Section 115JB adjustments, and weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) were decided in favor of the Assessee, while others were dismissed or partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening were sufficiently specific and dismissed the ground related to limitation. However, due to a lack of proper verification of the assessee's ledger and loss calculations by the lower authorities, the issue of unexplained investment and set-off of losses was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the Assessee's grounds regarding the special audit under Section 142(2A) were not maintainable as the appeal was filed against the assessment order passed under Section 144, and Section 246A does not provide for an appeal against the direction for a special audit. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed returns for multiple years, and a search had been conducted, leading to the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A. The AO had found discrepancies and complexities necessitating a special audit. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had not filed returns and had not provided satisfactory explanations for seized documents. The AO had rejected the assessee's books and made additions based on the special audit report and seized documents. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not responded to notices and show-cause notices. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions concerning capital gains and notional rent as the primary issue of the maintainability of the special audit grounds was decided. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the Assessee's grounds regarding the special audit under Section 142(2A) were not maintainable as the appeal was filed against the assessment order passed under Section 144, and Section 246A does not provide for an appeal against the direction for a special audit. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed returns for multiple years, and a search had been conducted, leading to the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A. The AO had found discrepancies and complexities necessitating a special audit. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had not filed returns and had not provided satisfactory explanations for seized documents. The AO had rejected the assessee's books and made additions based on the special audit report and seized documents. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not responded to notices and show-cause notices. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions concerning capital gains and notional rent as the primary issue of the maintainability of the special audit grounds was decided. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the Assessee's grounds regarding the special audit under Section 142(2A) were not maintainable as the appeal was filed against the assessment order passed under Section 144, and Section 246A does not provide for an appeal against the direction for a special audit. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed returns for multiple years, and a search had been conducted, leading to the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A. The AO had found discrepancies and complexities necessitating a special audit. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had not filed returns and had not provided satisfactory explanations for seized documents. The AO had rejected the assessee's books and made additions based on the special audit report and seized documents. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not responded to notices and show-cause notices. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions concerning capital gains and notional rent as the primary issue of the maintainability of the special audit grounds was decided. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the Assessee's grounds regarding the special audit under Section 142(2A) were not maintainable as the appeal was filed against the assessment order passed under Section 144, and Section 246A does not provide for an appeal against the direction for a special audit. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed returns for multiple years, and a search had been conducted, leading to the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A. The AO had found discrepancies and complexities necessitating a special audit. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had not filed returns and had not provided satisfactory explanations for seized documents. The AO had rejected the assessee's books and made additions based on the special audit report and seized documents. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not responded to notices and show-cause notices. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions concerning capital gains and notional rent as the primary issue of the maintainability of the special audit grounds was decided. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the present appeal proceedings are not sustainable due to the liquidation order passed by the NCLT against the assessee company. The Tribunal relied on Section 33(5) of the IBC, 2016, which clearly states that once a liquidation order is passed, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted by or against the corporate debtor. This provision was interpreted to mean that pending proceedings also cannot be processed or pursued parallel to the IBC proceedings. The Tribunal further emphasized that the IBC has an overriding effect over other laws, including the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per Section 238 of the IBC and acknowledged by Section 178(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal cited decisions from its coordinate benches in M/s PKS Limited and Pratibha Industries Ltd. v. DCIT, which held similar views. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. Liberty was granted to the Revenue/Official Liquidator to request for recall of the order if the occasion arises.

The Tribunal held that the Assessee's grounds regarding the special audit under Section 142(2A) were not maintainable as the appeal was filed against the assessment order passed under Section 144, and Section 246A does not provide for an appeal against the direction for a special audit. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed returns for multiple years, and a search had been conducted, leading to the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A. The AO had found discrepancies and complexities necessitating a special audit. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had not filed returns and had not provided satisfactory explanations for seized documents. The AO had rejected the assessee's books and made additions based on the special audit report and seized documents. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not responded to notices and show-cause notices. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions concerning capital gains and notional rent as the primary issue of the maintainability of the special audit grounds was decided. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the Assessee's appeal. Specific grounds related to depreciation, Section 115JB adjustments, and weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) were decided in favor of the Assessee, while others were dismissed or partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid and bad in law because the Assessing Officer sought to re-examine issues that were already considered and decided during the original assessment without any fresh tangible material. Consequently, the additions made in the reassessment were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee's persistent non-compliance and failure to present a case on merits led to the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the additions made were not based on the reasons recorded for reopening. The CIT(A) had correctly quashed the reassessment order, and the additions made on grounds not forming part of the reasons recorded were liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that goodwill created as a result of amalgamation is a depreciable asset, as it came into existence due to the amalgamation itself, not a transfer of an existing asset. The Tribunal also noted that amendments to Section 32, effective from AY 2021-22, do not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that Section 80IA(9) has universal application to all deductions under sub-chapter C of Chapter VI. Therefore, deductions under Section 80HHC would be restricted if the income was already considered for deduction under Section 80IA.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was directed to comply with the notices and not misuse the opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground.

The Tribunal held that cooperative banks are registered as cooperative societies and are thus eligible for the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest earned from them. Consequently, the disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee was deleted.

The Tribunal held that cooperative banks are registered as cooperative societies and are thus eligible for the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest earned from them. Consequently, the disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the admission of a substantial question of law by the High Court indicated the issue was debatable. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal quashed the penalty, stating that mere disallowance does not automatically imply furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The ITAT admitted the additional evidence, noting the assessee's non-compliance but deeming the evidence crucial for a fair decision. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the time limit for filing applications for registration under Section 12AB to 30.06.2024. The assessee filed a fresh application within this extended period, rendering the appeal against the earlier rejection infructuous.

The Tribunal held that Section 80IA(9) has universal application to all deductions under sub-chapter C of Chapter VI. Therefore, deductions under Section 80HHC would be restricted if the income was already considered for deduction under Section 80IA.