ITAT Nagpur Judgments — April 2025

The assessee submitted an application to withdraw the appeal due to settling the matter under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal considered the assessee's intention and decided to treat the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that although the CIT(A) had granted opportunities, the final order was ex-parte. To uphold the principles of natural justice, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly invoked the amended provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by setting aside the ex-parte assessment order and remanding the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, as the submitted evidences had a direct bearing on the issue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions across all issues, dismissing all appeals. It ruled that Brand Development Expenses are revenue expenditure, premium on non-convertible debentures is allowable as no TDS was required due to unidentifiable payees, 40% depreciation is applicable to aircraft, and income from share sales should be treated as capital gain. For the corporate guarantee fee, the Tribunal found the 0.2% ALP adjustment by the CIT(A) justified, dismissing both the Revenue's challenge for a higher rate and the assessee's challenge to any adjustment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding brand development expenses and non-convertible debentures, finding them to be revenue expenditure and allowable deductions respectively. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s restriction of corporate guarantee fees, deeming it not to be an international transaction requiring adjustment.

The Tribunal held that the land was agricultural land at the time of sale and therefore not a capital asset. Subsequent conversion by the purchaser is irrelevant, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions to treat brand development expenses and premium on non-convertible debentures as allowable deductions, consistent with prior judgments in the assessee's own case and other precedents. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to allow 40% depreciation on aircraft and to assess income from share sales as capital gains. For the corporate guarantee fee, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s restriction to 0.2%, dismissing both the Revenue's and assessee's appeals on this point.

The assessee's counsel stated that the relief sought in the appeal had already been granted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable only when an assessee conceals income or furnishes inaccurate particulars. A mere claim, even if unsustainable, does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when it arises from an interpretation of facts. The Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. was relied upon.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal, with liberty to restore it if the scheme declaration did not succeed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's grounds of appeal. It found no reason to interfere with the deletion of additions related to the unsecured loan and the LTCG, considering the assessee had provided sufficient documentation and relied on previous coordinate bench decisions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. It found that the disallowance should be restricted to the rent difference and that the additions under Section 69A and denial of Section 11 exemption were not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. It found that the disallowance should be restricted to the rent difference and that the additions under Section 69A and denial of Section 11 exemption were not justified.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents were 'dumb documents' without corroborating evidence and that the Assessing Officer's addition was based on surmises and conjectures. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. It found that the disallowance should be restricted to the rent difference and that the additions under Section 69A and denial of Section 11 exemption were not justified.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents were 'dumb documents' lacking corroboration and specific details linking them to the assessee's transactions. The addition was made on surmises and conjectures, disregarding the assessee's verifiable records and Shri Yamsanwar's denial of cash receipt.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of its agricultural income claim for both A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13. The previous year's addition remained unchallenged, and the current year showed a significant jump in income without supporting evidence. The Tribunal found the claim to be a ploy to launder unaccounted money.

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was also granted liberty to revive the appeal if the outcome of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme declaration was not favorable.