ITAT Amritsar Judgments — December 2019

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because there was no evidence of the existence of the AOP and the AO failed to prove its existence. The statement recorded during the survey lacked evidentiary value without corroborative material.

The Tribunal noted that the seized diary and additional evidence submitted by the assessee were not properly examined by the AO or the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issue back to the AO for a de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's appeal. It held that capital gains tax should be computed based on the actual sale consideration received during the year, following a High Court decision. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the quantum of income was decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the peculiar facts, including the transfer of officers and the delay in submitting PAN details. It was inclined to set aside the orders and remit the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, considering the submitted or to-be-submitted details.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity, without striking off the irrelevant limb, indicates a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and violates the principles of natural justice.

The tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted if no exempt income is earned, and deleted the addition made on this account. However, disallowances for printing and stationery, and travelling expenses were upheld due to lack of proper evidence.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's honest admission of a bonafide mistake and the fact that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, holding that it was imposed merely on the basis of surrendered income and a revised return, without independent inquiries or adverse material. The Tribunal upheld this deletion, finding no justification for the penalty.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemptions) and remanded the case back for fresh consideration. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to consider the society's reply dated 28.09.2018 and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee presented new submissions and evidence before it which had not been examined by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity, without striking off the irrelevant limb, indicates a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and violates the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity, without striking off the irrelevant limb, indicates a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and violates the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity, without striking off the irrelevant limb, indicates a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and violates the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's appeal. It held that capital gains tax should be computed based on the actual sale consideration received during the year, following a High Court decision. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the quantum of income was decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity, without striking off the irrelevant limb, indicates a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and violates the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity, without striking off the irrelevant limb, indicates a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and violates the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity, without striking off the irrelevant limb, indicates a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and violates the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity, without striking off the irrelevant limb, indicates a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and violates the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the AO's belief of income escaping assessment was based on vague information and mere bank deposits do not automatically indicate escaped income. The assessee had provided sufficient explanation and evidence, which the AO failed to disprove.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding dividend distribution and standard loan provisions, following its own prior decisions. However, it remanded the issue of provisions for fraud and interest paid to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding dividend distribution and standard loan provisions, following its own prior decisions. However, it remanded the issue of provisions for fraud and interest paid to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding dividend distribution and standard loan provisions, following its own prior decisions. However, it remanded the issue of provisions for fraud and interest paid to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that the enhancement of disallowance from 0.5% to 1% by the CIT(A) was not sustainable as the relevant rule amendment was applicable from a later assessment year. The addition at 0.5% was also not sustained due to the Assessing Officer's failure to crystallize the expenditure.

The Tribunal directed the AO to allow a deduction for cash withdrawals from the savings account from the amount of unexplained deposits/concealed sales, as per the CIT(A)'s direction. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed further deduction of the returned income from the profit calculated at 8% on the reduced sales.

The tribunal held that unabsorbed losses brought forward from earlier years are allowable to be set off against the business income of the current year. The issue was set aside to the AO for verification and allowance in accordance with law.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding dividend distribution and standard loan provisions, following its own prior decisions. However, it remanded the issue of provisions for fraud and interest paid to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that where sales are estimated, only the profit element should be added, not the entire sales amount. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments was upheld.

The Tribunal held that since the Hon'ble High Court had deleted the quantum addition in the assessee's case, the basis for the penalty no longer survived. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT guidelines. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction, even if not allowable, does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, especially when based on a debatable issue and made with a bonafide belief. The penalty was not leviable as the assessee had disclosed all material facts.

The Tribunal held that the AO's notice under Section 274 was bad in law as it failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of clarity indicated a non-application of mind by the AO.

The Tribunal allowed further deduction of Rs. 1,55,120/- from the sustained peak credit addition, considering the possibility of prior year savings and returned income of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that for tenanted properties sold on an 'as is where basis' to tenants, the Rent Capitalization Method should be applied as per Section 50C(2) of the Act read with Wealth Tax Act provisions. The VO should have used this method, applied PWD rates, and allowed depreciation at 95% with a building life of 60 years.

The Tribunal decided to remit one issue regarding alleged advances to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. However, the disallowance of interest on unsecured loans was upheld as the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient interest-free funds or commercial expediency.

The ITAT decided to remit one issue regarding alleged advances to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination with a reconciliation statement. The other issue concerning disallowance of interest was upheld.

The ITAT decided to remit one issue regarding alleged advances to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination with a reconciliation statement. The other issue concerning disallowance of interest on unsecured loans was upheld.

The ITAT decided to remit one issue regarding alleged advances to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination with a reconciliation statement. The other issue concerning disallowance of interest on unsecured loans was upheld, finding the CIT(A)'s conclusion logical and well-reasoned.

The Tribunal decided to remit one issue regarding alleged advances to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination with a reconciliation statement. The other issue concerning disallowance of interest was upheld, finding the CIT(A)'s conclusion logical and well-reasoned.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be sustained on the Rs. 90,000/- addition related to share application money, as the assessee had not established its creditworthiness. However, no penalty was leviable on the Rs. 45,852/- expenses, which were statutorily allowable.

The tribunal dismissed the ground against the ex-parte order due to repeated adjournments by the assessee. However, it allowed the deletion of disallowance on fabrication charges, stating no further addition is needed if books are rejected. The addition for non-deduction of TDS was upheld as it's a statutory disallowance.

The Tribunal held that where sales are estimated, only the profit element should be added, not the entire sales amount. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments was upheld.

The Tribunal decided to remit one issue regarding alleged advances to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination with a reconciliation statement. The other issue concerning disallowance of interest was upheld, finding the CIT(A)'s conclusion logical and well-reasoned.

The Tribunal decided to remit one issue regarding alleged advances to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination with a reconciliation statement. The other issue concerning disallowance of interest was upheld, finding the CIT(A)'s conclusion logical and well-reasoned.

The Tribunal held that where sales are estimated, only the profit element should be added, not the entire sales amount. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were out of the cash in hand of the company and thus the source was explained. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to establish that the company did not have sufficient cash in hand to justify the deposits, making the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and taken a plausible view, and the Pr.CIT had not specified what further inquiries were required. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's order under section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence was necessary for proper appreciation of the issue and for causing substantial justice. It relied on a Delhi High Court judgment allowing admission of additional evidence in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that there is no bar in Section 12AA for applying for registration at any stage. The CIT(E) should primarily examine the charitable nature of objects and genuineness of activities, not delve into the actual application of funds at the registration stage. The matter was set aside for fresh consideration.