ITAT Amritsar Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal deleted the addition on discount, holding that no TDS was required on the discount allowed by BSNL to its distributors, following a coordinate bench decision. However, the addition on account of undisclosed interest income was sustained due to the assessee's inability to explain the difference.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had incorrectly observed that no appeal was filed for the prior year. The Tribunal set aside both the excess depreciation and interest income issues to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as it was a duplicate filing for the same assessment year. The learned DR had no objection to the request.

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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.

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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the AO under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable on legal grounds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's findings without properly considering the assessee's explanations and without granting an opportunity to rebut adverse views, violating principles of natural justice. The case was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without considering the assessee's submissions and in violation of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering all evidence and submissions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient explained income to cover the peak cash deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted, and the consequential penalty was dismissed.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). It agreed that the assessee had concealed the entire transaction and that the additions made by the AO, as modified by the CIT(A), were logical.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient explained income to cover the peak cash deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted, and the consequential penalty was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that while the AO had sufficient information to prove the cash purchase, the utilization of the assessee's PAN in the AIR was not properly verified through cross-examination with the dealer and the assessee's son. The reasons for using the PAN were not adequately clarified.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bills from a jeweller with sales tax registration, to explain the source of the cash deposit from the sale of ancestral gold ornaments. The revenue authorities had not conducted proper verification of the transaction.

The Tribunal set aside all grounds, including the additional ground, and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce all relevant documents for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's additional ground regarding the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2), deeming it not curable under Section 292BB. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for further adjudication on this issue, along with other grounds.

The Tribunal accepted the new evidence of corrected land records submitted by the assessee, which indicated the land was agricultural. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on this evidence.

The Tribunal held that merely because a claim was not accepted in the assessment does not automatically imply concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition based on judicial pronouncements without adequately appreciating the assessee's specific facts, past history, and parity with cited cases. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is dependent on the tax levied as per the assessment order. Therefore, the penalty order needed to be modified to reflect the ITAT's decision on the additions. The penalty order was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the non-jurisdictional ITO Phagwara under Section 148 rendered the entire assessment invalid. The assessment order, therefore, could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that interest earned from deposits with scheduled banks (other than cooperative banks) is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P. However, regarding repair, maintenance, insurance, and gratuity expenses, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.

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

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

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's counsel to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's counsel to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.