ITAT Amritsar Judgments — February 2018

The Tribunal remitted the matter of valuation of the Saidakadal property to the Assessing Officer to determine if the land value was included in the Rs.18 lac figure. Similarly, the valuation of the Gulmarg land/hut was also remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's inactivity but, considering the CIT(A) did not decide on merits, remanded the case back. This was done to ensure the principle of natural justice and allow for a decision on the merits of the appeal.

The Tribunal, following its own previous orders for the assessee in identical matters, held that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and no contrary material in the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an illiterate person with a small job work, acted under a bonafide belief that he was not carrying on a business and was therefore not required to maintain books of account. This bonafide belief absolved him from the penalty.

The Tribunal held that an order passed under Section 127 is not appealable before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the Section 127 order invalid and setting aside the assessment.

The Tribunal held that an order passed under Section 127 is not appealable before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the Section 127 order invalid and setting aside the assessment.

The Tribunal held that an order passed under Section 127 is not appealable before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the Section 127 order invalid and setting aside the assessment.

The Tribunal held that the reduction in investment value was due to market valuation of securities held as stock-in-trade. Following its own precedent for earlier years, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It found no mens rea, noted the transactions were genuine and bonafide, and followed previous ITAT rulings where similar penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was not maintainable. This was based on CBDT Instruction No. 21 of 2015, which precludes the department from filing appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lacs.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that ad-hoc additions on an estimated basis for sundry creditors cannot be made without clear findings that specific creditors are bogus and their genuineness could not be established. The AO's addition was based on estimation without sufficient evidence.

The CIT(A) rightly accepted the assessee's declared net profit rate. This was based on the fact that the AO had accepted similar net profit rates in subsequent assessment years and the destruction of records due to floods was a mitigating factor.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's inactivity but, considering the CIT(A) did not decide on merits, remanded the case back. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully in the fresh proceedings.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they no longer wished to pursue it. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which is the basis for the penalty, has been remitted back to the CIT(A), the penalty matter should also be remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions for similar assessment years. The Tribunal found the facts and circumstances to be identical and decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in considering only the closing balance of investments, overlooking redemptions and maturities made during the year. The actual investments made by the assessee were higher than the figure reported in the AIR information.

The Tribunal held that since the addition made by the Assessing Officer, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted by a previous Tribunal order, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of commission expenses, finding the services unsubstantiated. However, regarding workshop income, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanations for accounting discrepancies and directed that the sale of used oil be credited to the profit and loss account.

The Tribunal held that the hand pieces for the Phaco Emulsification Machine were revenue expenditure and directed deletion of disallowance. However, it confirmed the disallowance for iPads and hard disks, considering them capital in nature or for enhancing capacity.

The Tribunal held that the order refusing registration was procedurally deficient as it was passed without granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 12AA(b)(ii). The Tribunal also noted that the power to refuse registration cannot be delegated.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order as it failed to address the grounds of appeal and the material on record. Therefore, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the denial of registration was based on irrelevant considerations and was inchoate. The application for registration was not premature, and the CIT(E) failed to properly consider the objects of the trust and provide a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that the denial of registration was based on irrelevant considerations and was inchoate. The application for registration was not premature, and the CIT(E) failed to properly consider the objects of the trust and provide a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was applicable as the assessee was found to have incurred expenditure met by unexplained cash. However, it also found duplication in the additions and directed deletion to the extent of verified duplication and payments made after March 31, 2007.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was applicable as the assessee was found to have incurred expenditure met by unexplained cash. However, it also found duplication in the additions and directed deletion to the extent of verified duplication and payments made after March 31, 2007.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) was satisfied with the objects of the appellant societies but erred in concluding that the activities were not genuine. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting registration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) was satisfied with the objects of the appellant societies but erred in concluding that the activities were not genuine. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting registration.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as it did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT circular. The Revenue was actually relying on the validity of Rule 46A, not challenging its constitutionality.