ITAT Amritsar Judgments — July 2019

SHRI SURINDER SINGH DECEASED,AMRITSAR. vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

ITA 357/ASR/2016[2002-03]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2019AY 2002-03Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to discharge the initial burden of proof regarding the source of funds, there was a distinct possibility that the funds did not belong to the deceased. The matter required further examination, including the testimony of a third party involved.

SATNAM SINGH MEMORIAL TRUST,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD-III(2), JALANDHAR

ITA 478/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2019AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate its expenses, making the claim for exemption inadmissible. The disallowance of 50% of unvouched expenses was considered fair and reasonable.

M/S STEEL KRAFT INDIA,BATALA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BATALA

ITA 615/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2019AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the commission expenditure was not sufficiently evidenced as the assessee failed to prove the services rendered by the payee. The claim was considered unevidenced and therefore not deductible.

SHRI SANT SADHU SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

ITA 763/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2019AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10 lacs, finding the assessee's claim of enhanced agricultural income unsubstantiated. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence and the assessee's consistent past returns of agricultural income.

M/S G G OILS & FATS PVT.LTD,BATHINDA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

ITA 508/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Jul 2019AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the transactions, even if mutual and interest-bearing, constituted loans or advances under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The repayment or adjustment of the loan during the year does not alter the fact that it was received as a deemed dividend.

SMT. ZEENAB,SRINAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), SRINAGAR

ITA 433/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed4 Jul 2019AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the short-term capital gain, agreeing that the property was held for a long period and thus not a short-term capital asset. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the Rs. 7,00,000/- addition as the assessee had explained the source and genuineness of the transaction.

ITO, WARD- 3(3), SRINAGAR vs SMT. ZEENAB, BEMINA

ITA 430/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed4 Jul 2019AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the short-term capital gain, agreeing that the property was held for a long period and thus not a short-term capital asset. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the Rs. 7,00,000/- addition as the assessee had explained the source and genuineness of the transaction.

MAJOR SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

ITA 426/ASR/2015[2005-06]Status: Disposed1 Jul 2019AY 2005-06Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment was bad in law due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under section 143(2). However, it also found that the explanation for Rs. 4 lacs as agricultural income was acceptable. The claim of a cash gift of Rs. 15 lacs was not accepted due to lack of evidence.

SHRI AJAIB SINGH,BATHINDA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

ITA 78/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: Disposed1 Jul 2019AY 2007-08Remanded

The Tribunal held that the transfer u/s. 2(47) would arise on the agreement to sell if the sale deed could be executed. However, if a subsisting dispute prevented execution, transfer would only occur upon satisfaction of that condition, not on the date of the agreement.