ITAT Amritsar Judgments — April 2022

INCOME TAX OFICER WARD -2, PHAGWARA vs SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH S/O SHRI SUCHA SINGH, PHILLAUR

ITA 770/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Apr 2022AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal found that the tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circular. With the consent of the Revenue's representative, the appeal was rejected on this ground.

MESERS K.C. EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY,HIMACHAL PRADESH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

ITA 529/ASR/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed20 Apr 2022AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that advances to certain parties with regular transactions could be considered business expediency. The matter was set aside to the AO for further verification regarding the nature and mode of payment of interest-free advances.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR vs MESERS K.C. EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY, HIMACHAL PRADESH

ITA 530/ASR/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed20 Apr 2022AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that advances to certain parties with regular transactions could be considered business expediency. The matter was remanded to the AO for further verification regarding the nature and mode of payment of interest-free advances.

RASHMI GHOSH,AMRITSAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4 (4), AMRTSAR

ITA 120/ASR/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Apr 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that they were not properly heard by the CIT(Appeals) before an adverse view was taken. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(3), AMRITSAR vs SH. MUKESH KUMAR, AMRITSAR

ITA 477/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Apr 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the AO an opportunity to rebut the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Principles of natural justice were violated by not allowing the AO to examine and verify the sundry creditors.

MEASAGE F.C SONDHI AND COMPANY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALNDHAR

ITA 566/ASR/2019[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Apr 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the write-off of the advance was a legitimate revenue expenditure, considering the contractor's failure to perform and refusal to return the amount. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

HARISH GARG,BATHINDA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

ITA 299/ASR/2016[2006-07]Status: Disposed19 Apr 2022AY 2006-07Withdrawn

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

HARISH GARG,BATHINDA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

ITA 174/ASR/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed19 Apr 2022AY 2007-08Withdrawn

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

SH. PRATAP SINGH SAMRA,AMRITSAR. vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

ITA 189/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed19 Apr 2022AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for further consideration, directing that the assessee should be given a proper opportunity to submit documents and that the reasons for reopening should be further examined.

SHRIMATI CHANDA GUPTA,JALANDHAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4 (2), JALANDHAR

ITA 460/ASR/2018[2005-06]Status: Disposed18 Apr 2022AY 2005-06Withdrawn

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.