ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(Exemption) erred by treating the fresh applications as non-maintainable, clarifying they were bona fide curative filings made within the extended compliance period, not appeals. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s orders and remanded the matter for a fresh examination of the applications on their merits, also directing the restoration of earlier provisional registrations.

The Tribunal held that the CUP method was not appropriate due to fundamental differences in quality, volume, and business model. It further held that the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) was the most appropriate method, and based on the assessee's analysis, the transaction was at arm's length, deleting the adjustment.

The Tribunal held that the orders of the CIT(A) for all three assessment years were justified and upheld them. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings, which sustained the rejection of books of account under section 145(3) but applied a fair and industry-consistent GP rate. The reasoning was based on appreciating the nature of the assessee's business, consistency in profitability ratios over the years, and the evidentiary material. The CIT(A) also drew support from judicial precedents, including rulings by the Hon'ble Gujarat and Bombay High Courts, which held that full disallowance of purchases is not justified when corresponding sales are accepted and there are no discrepancies in stock records or turnover. The Tribunal agreed that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) at 5% (for AY 2018-19) and 6% (for AY 2020-21 and 2021-22) were in line with past adjudications and accounted for the profit element embedded in disputed purchases. The Tribunal considered the AO's application of an inflated GP rate of 12.5% to be unjustified. No other grounds were pressed by the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the assessee's grounds regarding reopening under section 147 and violation of natural justice, as the appeals were dismissed on the merits of the addition quantum.

The Tribunal held that the orders of the CIT(A) for all three assessment years were justified and upheld them. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings, which sustained the rejection of books of account under section 145(3) but applied a fair and industry-consistent GP rate. The reasoning was based on appreciating the nature of the assessee's business, consistency in profitability ratios over the years, and the evidentiary material. The CIT(A) also drew support from judicial precedents, including rulings by the Hon'ble Gujarat and Bombay High Courts, which held that full disallowance of purchases is not justified when corresponding sales are accepted and there are no discrepancies in stock records or turnover. The Tribunal agreed that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) at 5% (for AY 2018-19) and 6% (for AY 2020-21 and 2021-22) were in line with past adjudications and accounted for the profit element embedded in disputed purchases. The Tribunal considered the AO's application of an inflated GP rate of 12.5% to be unjustified. No other grounds were pressed by the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the assessee's grounds regarding reopening under section 147 and violation of natural justice, as the appeals were dismissed on the merits of the addition quantum.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of account but found the addition of entire purchases to be unsustainable. It held that only the profit element embedded in the alleged bogus purchases should be taxed, reducing the addition to a reasonable GP rate.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to restrict the addition to a reasonable gross profit rate (5% or 6%) on the impugned purchases, considering the profit element and judicial precedents. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's higher GP rate unjustified.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to restrict the addition on bogus purchases to a reasonable gross profit rate (5% or 6%) instead of the full amount, considering the profit element and judicial precedents. The rejection of books of account was also sustained.

The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(Exemption) erred by treating the fresh applications as non-maintainable, clarifying they were bona fide curative filings made within the extended compliance period, not appeals. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s orders and remanded the matter for a fresh examination of the applications on their merits, also directing the restoration of earlier provisional registrations.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and also failed to provide necessary details or explanations. However, considering the interest of justice and the quantum of additions, the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to present supporting evidence.

The Tribunal acknowledged the delay but, considering the circumstances and the assessee's undertaking to provide all necessary documents, granted one more opportunity for hearing. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged the delay but, considering the circumstances and the assessee's undertaking to provide all necessary documents, granted one more opportunity for hearing. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the meaning of turnover as provided under Section 145A of the Act cannot be adopted for determining the rate of tax based on turnover. It also noted that the ICAI guidance does not mandate including excise duty in turnover when an exclusive method of accounting is followed. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to restrict the addition on bogus purchases to a reasonable gross profit rate (5% or 6%) instead of the full amount, considering the profit element and judicial precedents. The rejection of books of account was also sustained.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting no objection from the Departmental Representative. The tribunal granted the assessee liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if they fail to avail the benefits of the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had a reasonable cause (death of accountant) for not submitting documents earlier and that the CIT(A) erred by not admitting additional evidence or seeking a remand report from the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence and obtain a remand report.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in denying registration. The objects of the trust were predominantly charitable and for the general public. Provisions of Section 13(1)(b) are applicable at the time of assessment, not at the stage of granting registration.

The Tribunal held that a delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural default and should not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Section 11 if other conditions are met and the report was available before the assessment order. The CIT(A)'s dismissal for non-prosecution was also noted.

The Tribunal held that while the evidence recovered during the search from the developer's premises was reliable, the assessee had consistently denied making on-money payments and repeatedly requested an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned person, Shri Paurav I Patel, who allegedly prepared the Excel sheet. This request was accepted by the ld. JCIT, who directed the AO to allow cross-examination. Although the witness did not appear on the stipulated date, the AO could have enforced his presence using powers under Section 131 of the Act, possibly with warrants. The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated by not providing the assessee with the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, despite directions from a competent authority. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the AO with directions to comply with the order of the ld. JCIT dated 12.12.2018, provide the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned witness(es), and thereafter pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. The AO was directed to exercise his powers to ensure the attendance of the witness(es).

The Tribunal held that while the evidence recovered during the search from the developer's premises was reliable, the assessee had consistently denied making on-money payments and repeatedly requested an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned person, Shri Paurav I Patel, who allegedly prepared the Excel sheet. This request was accepted by the ld. JCIT, who directed the AO to allow cross-examination. Although the witness did not appear on the stipulated date, the AO could have enforced his presence using powers under Section 131 of the Act, possibly with warrants. The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated by not providing the assessee with the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, despite directions from a competent authority. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the AO with directions to comply with the order of the ld. JCIT dated 12.12.2018, provide the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned witness(es), and thereafter pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. The AO was directed to exercise his powers to ensure the attendance of the witness(es).

The Tribunal held that while the evidence recovered during the search from the developer's premises was reliable, the assessee had consistently denied making on-money payments and repeatedly requested an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned person, Shri Paurav I Patel, who allegedly prepared the Excel sheet. This request was accepted by the ld. JCIT, who directed the AO to allow cross-examination. Although the witness did not appear on the stipulated date, the AO could have enforced his presence using powers under Section 131 of the Act, possibly with warrants. The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated by not providing the assessee with the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, despite directions from a competent authority. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the AO with directions to comply with the order of the ld. JCIT dated 12.12.2018, provide the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned witness(es), and thereafter pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. The AO was directed to exercise his powers to ensure the attendance of the witness(es).

The Tribunal held that while the evidence recovered during the search from the developer's premises was reliable, the assessee had consistently denied making on-money payments and repeatedly requested an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned person, Shri Paurav I Patel, who allegedly prepared the Excel sheet. This request was accepted by the ld. JCIT, who directed the AO to allow cross-examination. Although the witness did not appear on the stipulated date, the AO could have enforced his presence using powers under Section 131 of the Act, possibly with warrants. The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated by not providing the assessee with the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, despite directions from a competent authority. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the AO with directions to comply with the order of the ld. JCIT dated 12.12.2018, provide the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned witness(es), and thereafter pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. The AO was directed to exercise his powers to ensure the attendance of the witness(es).

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's additional evidence supporting the business of providing Umrah services, and noted that withdrawals were also made from the same bank account. Considering these facts and the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed that a net profit of 5% on the total credits/deposits be treated as the assessee's net profits, rather than adding the entire amount as unexplained income.

The Tribunal held that while the evidence recovered during the search from the developer's premises was reliable, the assessee had consistently denied making on-money payments and repeatedly requested an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned person, Shri Paurav I Patel, who allegedly prepared the Excel sheet. This request was accepted by the ld. JCIT, who directed the AO to allow cross-examination. Although the witness did not appear on the stipulated date, the AO could have enforced his presence using powers under Section 131 of the Act, possibly with warrants. The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated by not providing the assessee with the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, despite directions from a competent authority. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the AO with directions to comply with the order of the ld. JCIT dated 12.12.2018, provide the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned witness(es), and thereafter pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. The AO was directed to exercise his powers to ensure the attendance of the witness(es).

The Tribunal held that while the evidence recovered during the search from the developer's premises was reliable, the assessee had consistently denied making on-money payments and repeatedly requested an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned person, Shri Paurav I Patel, who allegedly prepared the Excel sheet. This request was accepted by the ld. JCIT, who directed the AO to allow cross-examination. Although the witness did not appear on the stipulated date, the AO could have enforced his presence using powers under Section 131 of the Act, possibly with warrants. The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated by not providing the assessee with the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, despite directions from a competent authority. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the AO with directions to comply with the order of the ld. JCIT dated 12.12.2018, provide the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned witness(es), and thereafter pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. The AO was directed to exercise his powers to ensure the attendance of the witness(es).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the Section 68 addition, holding that while the entire turnover value cannot be taxed, the profit element of Rs. 9,26,100/- from the alleged client code modification is taxable. For the Section 37 disallowance, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the expenses were genuinely incurred in AY 2014-15 despite being paid in the subsequent year.

The Tribunal held that while the evidence recovered during the search from the developer's premises was reliable, the assessee had consistently denied making on-money payments and repeatedly requested an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned person, Shri Paurav I Patel, who allegedly prepared the Excel sheet. This request was accepted by the ld. JCIT, who directed the AO to allow cross-examination. Although the witness did not appear on the stipulated date, the AO could have enforced his presence using powers under Section 131 of the Act, possibly with warrants. The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated by not providing the assessee with the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, despite directions from a competent authority. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the AO with directions to comply with the order of the ld. JCIT dated 12.12.2018, provide the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned witness(es), and thereafter pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. The AO was directed to exercise his powers to ensure the attendance of the witness(es).

The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were factually incorrect and contrary to the records, as the assessee had already filed her return. Since the Assessing Officer failed to verify primary records, the reasons were inaccurately recorded, rendering the entire reopening proceedings void ab initio.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of ₹6.80 crore. The Tribunal held that the assessee's transactions were properly recorded in books, adequately explained with documentation, and the Revenue failed to rebut the explanations or conduct any independent investigation, thus rendering Section 69A inapplicable.

The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to discharge the initial onus of proving the payments were excessive by not conducting proper inquiry, assessing fair market value, or providing comparable instances. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) was not justified and was deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 where similar losses were allowed as business/finance loss.

The Tribunal found that the email address in Form 35 explicitly indicated a denial for service via email. Thus, notices sent to that email were not considered valid service. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, with the condition that the assessee must comply with all future notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied by the AO is unsustainable in law and is hereby deleted. The reasoning is based on Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which states that penalty is not to be imposed where the assessee proves that the price charged or paid was computed in accordance with section 92C, in good faith, and with due diligence. The Tribunal found that the assessee had used a prescribed method (TNMM) under section 92C and disclosed the selection of filters, comparables, and operating margin computation in its transfer pricing study report. Neither the TPO nor the CIT(A) held that the ALP was computed outside statutory provisions, or that the study report lacked diligence or was not prepared in good faith. The Tribunal concluded that the necessary conditions under Explanation 7 for imposing penalty were not satisfied. Since the decision was based on merits, other technical grounds raised by the assessee on jurisdiction were not separately adjudicated. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

The Tribunal addressed the issues as follows: Regarding the claim of deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) (Issue 1), the Tribunal noted that the AO disallowed it as the amount was transferred to a special reserve which was a component of the general fund. The CIT(A) had also disallowed it. The Tribunal, however, referred to a co-ordinate bench decision in the case of ACIT vs. Gujarat State Financial Corporation (2013) 354 ITR 319 (Guj) and the Supreme Court decision in ICDS Ltd. v. CIT (350 ITR 527), and set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's submissions and the relevant case law. The Tribunal did not decide the applicability of the proviso or the absence of share capital on merits but remanded the issue. On the disallowance under Section 14A (Issue 2), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had restricted the disallowance to Rs. 10,00,000/-. The Revenue's appeal contested this restriction. The Tribunal observed that the issue was covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. D.P.S. Educational Society (2019) 414 ITR 354 (SC), which was applied by the co-ordinate bench. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was to be followed, and the Revenue's ground was dismissed. However, the judgment also mentions setting aside the matter back to the AO for determining lease classification, which seems to relate to a different issue, and the specific finding on Section 14A is that the CIT(A)'s order was to be followed, implying the Rs. 10,00,000/- cap was upheld. Regarding rental income and lease classification (Issue 3), the Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had set aside this issue to the CIT(A) for determining whether it was an operating or finance lease, and this order was subject to a miscellaneous application. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to the outcome of the miscellaneous applications, and to pass orders in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing. Revenue's grounds 2 & 3 were partly allowed. Concerning the deduction for interest returned to the North Kerala Project Development Fund (Issue 4), the judgment does not contain a specific finding or decision on this issue, nor does it mention the condition imposed by the NFAC. It appears this specific point was not adjudicated in the provided excerpt. For the contribution to the Employee's Recreation Club (Issue 5), the judgment does not contain a specific finding or decision. Regarding the VRS payments (Issue 6), the judgment does not contain a specific finding or decision. On the applicability of Section 115JB (Issue 7), the Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had held that Section 115JB was not applicable to the assessee in ITA No. 733/Ahd/2023 & Ors. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed this ground raised by the Revenue. On the issue of bad debts written off (Issue 8), the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order which directed the AO to verify and allow the claim of bad debts in accordance with law, holding that the assessee was engaged in financing as per the NDDB Act. The Revenue's ground was dismissed as devoid of merit. The operative direction was to allow the claim after verification by the AO. Overall, the appeals filed by the Revenue were partly allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee now possessed the missing documents and requested an opportunity to submit them. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal decided on several issues, including remanding the lease agreement issue for further determination, dismissing the Revenue's ground regarding Section 115JB, and partly allowing Revenue's grounds related to administrative expenses. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow bad debts written off as an expenditure.

The Tribunal decided on several issues, including remanding the lease agreement issue for further determination, dismissing the Revenue's ground regarding Section 115JB, and partly allowing Revenue's grounds related to administrative expenses. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow bad debts written off as an expenditure.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the claim of deduction under Section 36(1)(viii), the Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had set aside this issue to the CIT(A) for determination. However, the judgment provided does not detail the Tribunal's final decision on this specific issue for the current appeals. It is stated that the matter was set aside to the AO for passing orders subject to the outcome of Miscellaneous Applications, with a direction to provide an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the finding on this issue is not fully elaborated in the provided text. On the disallowance under Section 14A and Rule 8D, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had restricted the disallowance to Rs. 10,00,000/-. The Revenue appealed this restriction, seeking to restore the AO's computation of Rs. 1,86,46,037/-. The Tribunal, in paragraph 23, stated that Grounds Nos. 2 & 3 filed by the Revenue are partly allowed. However, the specific reasoning and the final quantum of disallowance are not detailed in the provided excerpt. Regarding the taxing of rental income and depreciation, the Tribunal referred to a co-ordinate bench decision that set aside the issue to the AO for determination, subject to the outcome of Miscellaneous Applications. Thus, the final decision on this point is contingent on further proceedings. Concerning the deduction for interest returned to the North Kerala Project Development Fund, the Tribunal's decision is not explicitly detailed in the provided text. However, the Assessee's ground of appeal suggests the CIT(A) had imposed a condition of appeal withdrawal, which the Assessee contested. On the disallowance of contribution to the Employee's Recreation Club, the Assessee's ground of appeal indicates no disallowance was required. The judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's finding on this specific issue. Regarding VRS payments, the Assessee argued that the expenditure was not eligible under Section 35DDA and should be allowed under Section 37(1) or the provision from AY 2011-12. The judgment does not provide the Tribunal's decision on this point. On the applicability of Section 115JB, the Tribunal dismissed Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue, following a co-ordinate bench decision dated 02-05-2025 in ITA No. 733/Ahd/2023 & Ors., which held that Section 115JB is not applicable to the Assessee. The ratio is that if a co-ordinate bench has ruled on the applicability of a section to the assessee, that decision binds the current bench. On the issue of bad debts written off, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the Assessee is engaged in financing as per Section 16(2)(k) of the NDDB Act, and therefore, bad debts written off should be allowed as an expenditure. The CIT(A) had directed the AO to verify and allow the claim. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this direction and dismissed the Revenue's Ground No. 4 for AY 2014-15 as devoid of merit. The ratio is that a statutory body empowered to provide financial assistance, and notified as a public financial institution, can claim deductions for bad debts incurred in the ordinary course of its money lending business. Operative Directions: The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeals on grounds related to Section 14A and Rule 8D. The issue of Section 115JB was dismissed in favour of the Assessee. The issue of bad debts was dismissed against the Revenue. Several issues were set aside to the AO for further adjudication.

The Tribunal decided on several issues, including remanding the lease agreement issue for further determination, dismissing the Revenue's ground regarding Section 115JB, and partly allowing Revenue's grounds related to administrative expenses. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow bad debts written off as an expenditure.

The Tribunal decided on several issues, including remanding the lease agreement issue for further determination, dismissing the Revenue's ground regarding Section 115JB, and partly allowing Revenue's grounds related to administrative expenses. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow bad debts written off as an expenditure.

The Tribunal decided on several issues, including remanding the lease agreement issue for further determination, dismissing the Revenue's ground regarding Section 115JB, and partly allowing Revenue's grounds related to administrative expenses. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow bad debts written off as an expenditure.

The Tribunal decided on several issues, including remanding the lease agreement issue for further determination, dismissing the Revenue's ground regarding Section 115JB, and partly allowing Revenue's grounds related to administrative expenses. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow bad debts written off as an expenditure.

Regarding Ground No. 1, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(A) and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the shareholding statement, where shares of M/s. Vindus Holdings Ltd. appeared in the assessee's account on 15.02.2010, while the share certificate was issued on 19.11.2010. This prior crediting, coupled with the off-market purchase, dematerialization just before sale, and the broker's admission of providing bogus LTCG, established that the assessee engaged in fictitious transactions to obtain bogus LTCG. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. Regarding Ground No. 2, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes and restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission of bank statements and cash book entries indicating withdrawals that could be the source of deposits. The AO had not verified these aspects. The assessee was granted liberty to file supporting evidence, and the AO was directed to pass appropriate orders after re-examination.

The Tribunal decided on several issues, including remanding the lease agreement issue for further determination, dismissing the Revenue's ground regarding Section 115JB, and partly allowing Revenue's grounds related to administrative expenses. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow bad debts written off as an expenditure.

The Tribunal decided on several issues, including remanding the lease agreement issue for further determination, dismissing the Revenue's ground regarding Section 115JB, and partly allowing Revenue's grounds related to administrative expenses. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow bad debts written off as an expenditure.

The Tribunal decided on various issues. Regarding Section 36(1)(viii) deduction, the Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for determination of lease type, which was subject to a Miscellaneous Application. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the MA and providing an opportunity of hearing. For Section 14A, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground, upholding the CIT(A)'s order which had restricted the disallowance to Rs. 10,00,000/-. Regarding rental income, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for re-adjudication, considering the outcome of the Miscellaneous Application concerning whether the lease was operating or finance lease. The issue of interest paid to the North Kerala Project Development Fund was also remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to the outcome of the Miscellaneous Application. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground concerning the adjustment of disallowance under Section 14A to book profits under Section 115JB, following a Coordinate Bench's decision that Section 115JB is not applicable to the Assessee. For bad debts written off, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order directing the AO to verify and allow the claim in accordance with law, thus dismissing the Revenue's ground. The judgment does not explicitly record findings on the disallowance of contribution to the Employee's Recreation club or the VRS payments, nor does it provide specific operative directions for these issues.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 where similar losses were allowed as business/finance loss.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 510 days, deeming the explanation as reasonable and bona fide. It set aside the impugned ex-parte orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and restored the matters to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh decision on the applications, directing that due opportunity of hearing be provided to the assessee, and the assessee cooperate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal addressed several issues. Regarding the claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii), the Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had set aside this issue to the file of the CIT(A) for determination of whether the lease was an operating or finance lease. This matter was subject to a Miscellaneous Application that had not attained finality. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the matter back to the AO with directions to pass an order subject to the outcome of the MA and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. For the issue of disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal dismissed Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue, as a coordinate bench had held that Section 115JB was not applicable to the assessee. Regarding the rental income from buildings, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for re-adjudication, considering the outcome of the pending Miscellaneous Application. On the issue of bad debts written off, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order directing the AO to verify and allow the claim in accordance with law, thus dismissing the Revenue's ground on this issue. The judgment does not explicitly state findings on all grounds raised by the assessee, particularly concerning the contribution to the Employee's Recreation Club and the VRS payments, nor does it detail the revenue's specific arguments on all points.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of additional depreciation on plant and machinery used for less than 180 days was not justified, following High Court judgments. The revenue's appeal on interest expenses was allowed due to the small quantum.