ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — November 2024

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 dismissal of the appeal for non-payment of advance tax was incorrect as the addition of unexplained investment is not an income the assessee was aware of and expected to earn. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) ignored previous ITAT decisions in favour of the assessee regarding similar disallowances. Following its own precedents for prior assessment years, the Tribunal directed that the disallowance under Section 14A be restricted to Rs. 12 lakhs, allowing credit for the suo moto disallowance already made.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided the assessee an opportunity of hearing before dismissing the appeal for delay. The penalty appeal should also be decided after the quantum proceedings are finalized.

The Tribunal held that the sale consideration for relinquishment of rights in land could not be computed based on the rate at which the societies sold the land. Regarding interest expenses, it was held that proportionate disallowance was correct as not all borrowed funds were utilized for earning income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly appreciated the facts regarding the advance receipts for flat bookings, the difference in sundry creditors due to GST implementation period, and the loan repayments made through banking channels.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee another opportunity to furnish required documents and decide the matter on merits. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the AO was incorrect in treating entire credit entries as income without considering debit entries and that the CIT(A) had not examined the merits. The matter was set aside to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a developer, not merely a contractor, by undertaking significant risks, deploying its own resources, and developing a full-fledged infrastructure facility. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a developer, not merely a contractor, by undertaking significant risks, deploying its own resources, and developing a full-fledged infrastructure facility. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a developer, not merely a contractor, by undertaking significant risks, deploying its own resources, and developing a full-fledged infrastructure facility. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a developer, not merely a contractor, by undertaking significant risks, deploying its own resources, and developing a full-fledged infrastructure facility. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that mortgage deeds, as evidenced by stamp duty certificates, are not sale deeds. The amounts received against mortgages cannot be considered sale consideration, and since the source of lent amounts was not questioned, no addition under Section 69A was warranted.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, which showed opening balances for the unsecured loans. The matter was set aside to the AO to examine these evidences and re-decide the case after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,41,90,000/- made on account of unexplained share application money under Section 68. The Tribunal found that the share application money was received in FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08) and not in AY 2014-15, as evidenced by RBI filings and Form FC-GPR. The agreement dated 02/05/2013 between Shri Ashok T. Shah and Mr. Eric Huysentruit of Bsurinvest did not indicate any undisclosed payment by the assessee company; it merely detailed Bsurinvest's intention to divest its holdings. The sale of shares was conducted through a registered broker, with payment directly remitted to Bsurinvest, and the AO provided no evidence of undisclosed financial dealings by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted the AO's incorrect reading of a bank statement entry. The documentary evidence, including board resolutions, bank statements, and RBI compliance certificates, demonstrated legitimate channels and proper recording of funds. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the AO's allegations lacked substantive evidence. Consequently, Revenue's Ground No. 8 was dismissed. The Tribunal did not provide a specific finding on the genuineness of purchases or the unexplained investment, as the operative part of the judgment focused on the share application money deletion. The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,41,90,000/- made on account of unexplained share application money under Section 68. The Tribunal found that the share application money was received in FY 2006-07 (AY 2007-08) and not in AY 2014-15, as evidenced by RBI filings and Form FC-GPR. The agreement dated 02/05/2013 between Shri Ashok T. Shah and Mr. Eric Huysentruit of Bsurinvest did not indicate any undisclosed payment by the assessee company; it merely detailed Bsurinvest's intention to divest its holdings. The sale of shares was conducted through a registered broker, with payment directly remitted to Bsurinvest, and the AO provided no evidence of undisclosed financial dealings by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted the AO's incorrect reading of a bank statement entry. The documentary evidence, including board resolutions, bank statements, and RBI compliance certificates, demonstrated legitimate channels and proper recording of funds. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the AO's allegations lacked substantive evidence. Consequently, Revenue's Ground No. 8 was dismissed. The Tribunal did not provide a specific finding on the genuineness of purchases or the unexplained investment, as the operative part of the judgment focused on the share application money deletion. The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the AO's correlation of cost of goods with turnover was inappropriate and failed to consider the substantial opening stock carried forward from the previous year.

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner (Appeals) passed non-speaking orders, violating principles of natural justice. The AO did not provide reasons for rejecting the assessee's explanation regarding prior acquisition and possession of the land.

The Tribunal held that self-assessment tax, after being adjusted against the assessed income, takes the character of tax paid in pursuance to an assessment. Therefore, interest under Section 244A is allowable on refunds of such tax, and the proviso regarding the refund being less than 10% of the tax determined is not applicable in this specific scenario.

The Tribunal held that Section 13 of the Act, which deals with the denial of exemptions, can only be invoked at the time of assessment and not at the stage of granting registration under Section 12AB. Therefore, the CIT(E) was not justified in denying registration on this ground.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided evidence of cash sales, purchase and sales registers, and maintained stock levels, the cash deposits were genuine sales and not unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that a recent amendment to Section 12A(1)(ac) empowers the CIT to condone delays in filing applications. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) to consider the condonation application and then decide on the registration merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) contravened Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules by admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh examination, with directions for proper opportunity to the assessee and compliance by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in rejecting the DCF method and unilaterally adopting the Net Asset Value (NAV) method. The CIT(A) also erred in not considering additional evidence and the assessee's contentions regarding valuation methods.

The Tribunal allowed all appeals for statistical purposes. For assessment year 2014-15, the appeals by both the Department and the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter being restored to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. This decision was influenced by the fact that the learned DR did not object to the matter being restored. For assessment year 2015-16, the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. This was due to the unabated nature of the assessment year and the assessee's application for adducing additional evidence. The learned CIT(A) had confirmed an addition of ₹60,00,000/- on account of credit entries in the bank account, stating the assessee failed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness. The Tribunal's reasoning for restoring the matters implies that the issues, particularly regarding the validity of Section 153C proceedings and the nature of additions, require further examination, potentially in light of the cited precedents and the opportunity for the assessee to present its case fully.

The Tribunal allowed all appeals for statistical purposes. For assessment year 2014-15, the appeals by both the Department and the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter being restored to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. This decision was influenced by the fact that the learned DR did not object to the matter being restored. For assessment year 2015-16, the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. This was due to the unabated nature of the assessment year and the assessee's application for adducing additional evidence. The learned CIT(A) had confirmed an addition of ₹60,00,000/- on account of credit entries in the bank account, stating the assessee failed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness. The Tribunal's reasoning for restoring the matters implies that the issues, particularly regarding the validity of Section 153C proceedings and the nature of additions, require further examination, potentially in light of the cited precedents and the opportunity for the assessee to present its case fully.

The Tribunal allowed all appeals for statistical purposes. For assessment year 2014-15, the appeals by both the Department and the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter being restored to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. This decision was influenced by the fact that the learned DR did not object to the matter being restored. For assessment year 2015-16, the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. This was due to the unabated nature of the assessment year and the assessee's application for adducing additional evidence. The learned CIT(A) had confirmed an addition of ₹60,00,000/- on account of credit entries in the bank account, stating the assessee failed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness. The Tribunal's reasoning for restoring the matters implies that the issues, particularly regarding the validity of Section 153C proceedings and the nature of additions, require further examination, potentially in light of the cited precedents and the opportunity for the assessee to present its case fully.

The Tribunal allowed all appeals for statistical purposes. For assessment year 2014-15, the appeals by both the Department and the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter being restored to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. This decision was influenced by the fact that the learned DR did not object to the matter being restored. For assessment year 2015-16, the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. This was due to the unabated nature of the assessment year and the assessee's application for adducing additional evidence. The learned CIT(A) had confirmed an addition of ₹60,00,000/- on account of credit entries in the bank account, stating the assessee failed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness. The Tribunal's reasoning for restoring the matters implies that the issues, particularly regarding the validity of Section 153C proceedings and the nature of additions, require further examination, potentially in light of the cited precedents and the opportunity for the assessee to present its case fully.

The Tribunal allowed all appeals for statistical purposes. For assessment year 2014-15, the appeals by both the Department and the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter being restored to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. This decision was influenced by the fact that the learned DR did not object to the matter being restored. For assessment year 2015-16, the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. This was due to the unabated nature of the assessment year and the assessee's application for adducing additional evidence. The learned CIT(A) had confirmed an addition of ₹60,00,000/- on account of credit entries in the bank account, stating the assessee failed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness. The Tribunal's reasoning for restoring the matters implies that the issues, particularly regarding the validity of Section 153C proceedings and the nature of additions, require further examination, potentially in light of the cited precedents and the opportunity for the assessee to present its case fully.

The Tribunal allowed all appeals for statistical purposes. For assessment year 2014-15, the appeals by both the Department and the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter being restored to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. This decision was influenced by the fact that the learned DR did not object to the matter being restored. For assessment year 2015-16, the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. This was due to the unabated nature of the assessment year and the assessee's application for adducing additional evidence. The learned CIT(A) had confirmed an addition of ₹60,00,000/- on account of credit entries in the bank account, stating the assessee failed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness. The Tribunal's reasoning for restoring the matters implies that the issues, particularly regarding the validity of Section 153C proceedings and the nature of additions, require further examination, potentially in light of the cited precedents and the opportunity for the assessee to present its case fully.

The Tribunal quashed the revision order passed by the PCIT. It held that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation regarding the genuineness of the share transactions, following precedents where similar penny stock cases were decided in favor of the assessee due to insufficient evidence of sham transactions.

The Tribunal allowed all appeals for statistical purposes. For assessment year 2014-15, the appeals by both the Department and the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter being restored to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. This decision was influenced by the fact that the learned DR did not object to the matter being restored. For assessment year 2015-16, the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. This was due to the unabated nature of the assessment year and the assessee's application for adducing additional evidence. The learned CIT(A) had confirmed an addition of ₹60,00,000/- on account of credit entries in the bank account, stating the assessee failed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness. The Tribunal's reasoning for restoring the matters implies that the issues, particularly regarding the validity of Section 153C proceedings and the nature of additions, require further examination, potentially in light of the cited precedents and the opportunity for the assessee to present its case fully.

The Tribunal allowed all appeals for statistical purposes. For assessment year 2014-15, the appeals by both the Department and the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter being restored to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. This decision was influenced by the fact that the learned DR did not object to the matter being restored. For assessment year 2015-16, the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. This was due to the unabated nature of the assessment year and the assessee's application for adducing additional evidence. The learned CIT(A) had confirmed an addition of ₹60,00,000/- on account of credit entries in the bank account, stating the assessee failed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness. The Tribunal's reasoning for restoring the matters implies that the issues, particularly regarding the validity of Section 153C proceedings and the nature of additions, require further examination, potentially in light of the cited precedents and the opportunity for the assessee to present its case fully.

The Tribunal allowed all appeals for statistical purposes. For assessment year 2014-15, the appeals by both the Department and the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter being restored to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. This decision was influenced by the fact that the learned DR did not object to the matter being restored. For assessment year 2015-16, the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. This was due to the unabated nature of the assessment year and the assessee's application for adducing additional evidence. The learned CIT(A) had confirmed an addition of ₹60,00,000/- on account of credit entries in the bank account, stating the assessee failed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness. The Tribunal's reasoning for restoring the matters implies that the issues, particularly regarding the validity of Section 153C proceedings and the nature of additions, require further examination, potentially in light of the cited precedents and the opportunity for the assessee to present its case fully.

The Tribunal allowed all appeals for statistical purposes. For assessment year 2014-15, the appeals by both the Department and the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter being restored to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. This decision was influenced by the fact that the learned DR did not object to the matter being restored. For assessment year 2015-16, the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. This was due to the unabated nature of the assessment year and the assessee's application for adducing additional evidence. The learned CIT(A) had confirmed an addition of ₹60,00,000/- on account of credit entries in the bank account, stating the assessee failed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness. The Tribunal's reasoning for restoring the matters implies that the issues, particularly regarding the validity of Section 153C proceedings and the nature of additions, require further examination, potentially in light of the cited precedents and the opportunity for the assessee to present its case fully.

The Tribunal allowed all appeals for statistical purposes. For assessment year 2014-15, the appeals by both the Department and the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter being restored to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. This decision was influenced by the fact that the learned DR did not object to the matter being restored. For assessment year 2015-16, the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. This was due to the unabated nature of the assessment year and the assessee's application for adducing additional evidence. The learned CIT(A) had confirmed an addition of ₹60,00,000/- on account of credit entries in the bank account, stating the assessee failed to prove genuineness and creditworthiness. The Tribunal's reasoning for restoring the matters implies that the issues, particularly regarding the validity of Section 153C proceedings and the nature of additions, require further examination, potentially in light of the cited precedents and the opportunity for the assessee to present its case fully.

The Tribunal quashed the revision proceedings initiated by the PCIT. It was held that the PCIT's revision was not justified as the assessee had not earned exempt income from the partnership firms, and the original assessment had been scrutinized.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the case on merits, providing one more opportunity to the legal heir. This was done in the interest of natural justice, given the ex-parte assessment and lack of materials.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked proper reasoning for both confirming and deleting the additions. Both parties agreed that the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper inquiry into the unsecured loans.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive the notices and agreed to remand the matter for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to comply with all future notices promptly.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission and the CIT-DR's concession. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, with the assessee directed to comply with future notices.

The Tribunal held that the activities carried out by the trust, such as food donation, blood donation, and programs for underprivileged children, demonstrate that it benefits the general public. The Tribunal also noted that the question of whether the trust benefits a particular community is relevant for exemption under Section 11, not for registration under Section 12AB.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's explanation of lack of awareness and clerical errors. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and directed the CIT(Exemption) to pass an order on merits after the assessee files a rectified application.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked proper reasoning for both confirming and deleting the additions. Both parties agreed that the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper inquiry into the unsecured loans.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive the notices and agreed to remand the matter for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to comply with all future notices promptly.

The Tribunal held that the negligence of the consultant should not be held against the assessee and that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.