ITAT Amritsar Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal directed the AO to re-calculate the addition based on the peak credit of transactions and allow telescoping. The assessee's contention that the reopening was invalid due to discrepancies in figures and lack of independent application of mind by the AO was not fully accepted, but the method of addition was modified.

The Tribunal held that the AO should have considered the withdrawals made from the bank account and that adding the entire deposits as unexplained was not justified. The assessee deserves the benefit of telescoping, which would render the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the additional evidence and arguments presented by the assessee. The matter was set aside for further adjudication, allowing the assessee a proper opportunity to establish the business purpose of the expenses.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the assessee failed to provide explanations. However, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was partly deleted based on explanations accepted in the remand report and the issue of lease rent was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that a liberal view should be adopted given the assessee's claim that records were lost due to floods and the absence of adverse remarks from the auditors. The authorities below did not point out specific missing vouchers.

The Tribunal found that the disallowance was made purely on an ad-hoc basis without any material on record pointing to discrepancies. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 1,02,350/- was ad-hoc and not specific, directing its deletion. However, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 4,76,068/- as capital expenditure, finding no material to suggest it did not provide an enduring benefit.

The Tribunal found that the disallowance was made purely on an ad-hoc basis without any material on record pointing to discrepancies. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's addition was purely ad-hoc and based on conjectures, as no specific vouchers or amounts were identified as missing. Therefore, the disallowance was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 13 governs Sections 11 and 12, not Section 10, and therefore, the AO and CIT(A) were not justified in invoking Section 13 to deny exemption under Section 10(23C). The additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 13 governs Sections 11 and 12, not Section 10, and therefore, the AO and CIT(A) were not justified in invoking Section 13 to deny exemption under Section 10(23C). The additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) violated principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and by not considering the documentary evidence submitted. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, in view of CBDT circular dated 8th August 2019, dismissed the revenue's appeals as withdrawn. The department was granted liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's name was withdrawn from the foreign bank account before the relevant assessment years. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified.

The Tribunal held that adjustments for levy of fees under Section 234E were beyond the scope of Section 200A before 01.06.2015. Therefore, the intimation raising such a demand was unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the estimation of GP by the lower authorities was unjustified as it lacked a guiding principle and was based on contradictory working. The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt a GP rate of 1.0% based on past history and VAT department's findings.

The Tribunal, in view of CBDT circular dated 8th August 2019, dismissed the revenue's appeals as withdrawn. The department was granted liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that Section 13 governs Sections 11 and 12, not Section 10, and therefore, the AO and CIT(A) were not justified in invoking Section 13 to deny exemption under Section 10(23C). The additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 13 governs Sections 11 and 12, not Section 10, and therefore, the AO and CIT(A) were not justified in invoking Section 13 to deny exemption under Section 10(23C). The additions were deleted.

The Tribunal found that the PCIT had passed the order ex-parte without ensuring proper service of notice and affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the PCIT's order was considered a violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E while processing the TDS statement under Section 200A was beyond the scope of Section 200A before its amendment on 01.06.2015. Therefore, such a levy was unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the estimation of GP by the lower authorities was unjustified as it lacked a guiding principle and was based on contradictory working. The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt a GP rate of 1.0% based on past history and VAT department's findings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision was not based on cogent documentary evidence and was made on presumption. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh after considering all evidence and granting an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision was not based on cogent documentary evidence and was made on presumption. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh after considering all evidence and granting an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision was not based on cogent documentary evidence and was made on presumption. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh after considering all evidence and granting an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's name was removed from the foreign bank account prior to the relevant assessment years, he could not be held liable for the deposits. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified without concrete evidence of ownership.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was remanded for fresh adjudication, the penalty sustained by the CIT(Appeals) was not sustainable. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was denied an opportunity to be heard. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the estimation of GP by the lower authorities was unjustified as it lacked a guiding principle and was based on contradictory working. The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt a GP rate of 1.0% based on past history and VAT department's findings.