ITAT Amritsar Judgments — April 2018

The Tribunal deleted additions on account of fictitious debtors, finding that sales were accepted and the assessee would only be a loser. Additions on account of unconfirmed creditors and the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities fall within the ambit of 'business' and are therefore hit by the second proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The Tribunal reasoned that the term 'business' is not confined to the purchase and sale of goods but can assume varied forms, including the delivery of services through better coordination and induction of technology, acting as an interface between the Government and citizens, and pursuing administrative reforms. The Tribunal noted that the society is to operate on a self-sustaining principle, implying it is run on sound business principles to ensure recovery of costs and a reasonable margin, even if rates are fixed with government approval. The Tribunal also considered the sale of statutory forms as an integral part of the undertaking and the ability to produce profit from the stated activities as relevant. Consequently, the assessee is not entitled to relief under Section 11. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the orders of the lower authorities. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for managing shrines and that subsequent registration under Section 12AA allows for exemption under Section 11 for the assessment year in question. However, it clarified that the assessee cannot claim exemption under both Section 11 and Section 10(23C)(iiiad) for different parts of its property.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for managing shrines and that subsequent registration under Section 12AA allows for exemption under Section 11 for the assessment year in question. However, it clarified that the assessee cannot claim exemption under both Section 11 and Section 10(23C)(iiiad) for different parts of its property.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) correctly denied registration as the society failed to disclose other sources of income and its activities beyond running the school. The charging of various fees also indicated a profit motive.

The Tribunal held that while the principle of staggering payments to avoid Section 40A(3) is valid, the assessee must prove that each consignment's delivery time necessitated such staggering. The Tribunal also partially allowed the Revenue's appeal on other disallowances related to cash expenses and personal use of vehicles.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which had deleted the majority of the addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee had substantiated refunds to 31 out of 33 students, with only Rs. 10,00,000/- remaining unsubstantiated.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee should have applied for adjournment, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without a speaking order on merits. The matter was therefore remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under Section 148 in the name of a deceased person is illegal and void ab initio. Therefore, all subsequent proceedings are also void. The order of the CIT(A) quashing the assessment was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry regarding expenditure related to investments yielding tax-exempt income. The Pr. CIT's revision was justified due to the AO's non-application of mind and non-observance of Board Circular 5/2014, which aligns with Supreme Court decisions on Section 14A.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not vigilant in pursuing the appeal and had not cured the defects. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the trust was at a nascent stage and had utilized its limited funds for charitable purposes, such as paying visiting doctors for free consultations. The CIT's reasoning for rejection was found to be without substance.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 6.05 lacs as income from an undisclosed source was justified as the assessee could not provide supporting evidence. However, since 5% of this amount was already assessed as net profit on sales, only the balance 95% could be further added.

The Tribunal acknowledged the principle of vigilance but also recognized that unintentional lapses should not permanently close the doors of justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged the principle of vigilance but also recognized that unintentional lapses should not permanently close the doors of justice. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly applied the peak credit theory by considering both debit and credit entries. The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were explainable and routed through the cash book, and that some deposits pertained to the subsequent year. The addition was therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that merely because a claim made by the assessee is not accepted by the Revenue does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that merely because a claim made by the assessee is not accepted by the Revenue does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed in limine.