ITAT Amritsar Judgments — March 2022

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's total utilization of funds, considering that after deducting the income tax payment, the utilization still exceeds the mandatory 85% limit. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, which restricts disallowance to 30% for non-deduction of TDS, is curative and retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance of laboratory expenses should be restricted to 30%.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid the dues under the Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme. The learned DR had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fee under Section 234E, was prospective and not applicable to periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fee for the quarter ending March 31, 2015, was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by the assessee from commercial bank deposits is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P as it is not derived from its primary business of providing credit facilities to its members. The interest is taxable as income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by the assessee from commercial bank deposits is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P as it is not derived from its primary business of providing credit facilities to its members. Such interest is taxable as income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s adoption of a 10.45% net profit rate was not justified without supporting evidence, especially considering the assessee's past practice of declaring around 8% net profit. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply a net profit rate of 8%.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have issued a show cause notice to the assessee before confirming the additions, as the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present their case and documentary evidence. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities failed to consider the fair market value of the shares, including intangible assets, as per Section 56(2)(viib). The valuation of assets was completed before share issuance, and no rebuttal was provided by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below took a hyper-technical view and that the assessee had rectified the defect by filing the audit report in compliance with the defective notice. Therefore, the denial of exemption was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the amount of exempt income. The rectification order, which allowed the disallowance to exceed exempt income, was deemed against the law.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to 2021-22, no disallowance can be made if the employees' contribution to PF & ESI is paid before the due date of filing the return of income, relying on various High Court judgments.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid the dues under the Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme and the designated authority had issued Form number 5. The learned DR conceded to the prayer for withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' observation to assess income in the status of AOP had no basis. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's submissions without adequately considering documentary evidence, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' observation to assess income in the status of AOP had no basis. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's submissions without adequately considering documentary evidence, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' observation to assess income in the status of AOP had no basis. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's submissions without adequately considering documentary evidence, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the failure to provide an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, whose statement formed the basis of the addition, was a serious flaw violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issue was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to this request.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' observation to assess income in the status of AOP had no basis. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's submissions without adequately considering documentary evidence, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) were factually incorrect regarding the source of funds for advances. Considering business expediency and the timing of advances, the Tribunal directed a restricted disallowance of interest.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the books of accounts under Section 145(3). However, considering the nature of the business, it directed the AO to apply a GP rate of 5.5% on total purchases for estimating income.