ITAT Amritsar Judgments — February 2023

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were defective and not maintainable due to the non-compliance by the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were defective and not maintainable due to the non-compliance by the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were defective and not maintainable due to the non-compliance by the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was illegal and bad in law due to the defective notice issued by the AO. The notice failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and also erroneously mentioned Section 271(1)(b).

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty based on a defective notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is bad in law. The failure to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars indicated a non-application of mind by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received for the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land was exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The date of acquisition, not the date of compensation award or disbursement, determined the applicability of the exemption.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed submitted the MOA and that the aims and objectives of the society were charitable in nature, including the maintenance and development of the Gurudwara. The Tribunal also noted that significant expenditure was incurred on the Gurudwara building, contrary to the CIT's observation.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for the transaction dated 08.06.2009 (AY 2010-11) was within the period of limitation. However, for the transaction dated 18.02.2009 (AY 2009-10), the reassessment notice was issued beyond the limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) needed to re-examine the issues regarding corpus donation, salaries, and surplus generation. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for adjudication after considering all evidence and providing an opportunity for a hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was due to the assessment and appellate orders being passed ex-parte without clear evidence of notice service on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice by not providing a proper opportunity of hearing. The short notice and rejection of adjournment request were deemed unfair.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground regarding the disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC for the meat export division. However, it upheld the addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) concerning advertisement expenses, stating the section applies to both paid and payable amounts.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground regarding the disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC for the meat export division. However, it upheld the addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) concerning advertisement expenses, stating the section applies to both paid and payable amounts.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had set aside similar issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Following this precedent, the Tribunal also remitted the entire grounds of appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had set aside similar issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Following this precedent, the Tribunal also remitted the entire grounds of appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had set aside similar issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Following this precedent, the Tribunal also remitted the entire grounds of appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground regarding the disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC for the meat export division. However, it upheld the addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) concerning advertisement expenses, stating the section applies to both paid and payable amounts.

The Tribunal accepted an additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee, arguing that the assessment should have been initiated under Section 153C instead of Section 147. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on this specific ground.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had set aside similar issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Following this precedent, the Tribunal also remitted the entire grounds of appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2015-16, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order of applying a 4% net profit rate. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal allowed the adjustment of interest paid against interest received, recognizing a nexus between the two concerning the assessee's business.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2015-16, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order of applying a 4% net profit rate. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal allowed the adjustment of interest paid against interest received, recognizing a nexus between the two concerning the assessee's business.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground regarding the disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC for the meat export division. However, it upheld the addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) concerning advertisement expenses, stating the section applies to both paid and payable amounts.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground regarding the disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC for the meat export division. However, it upheld the addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) concerning advertisement expenses, stating the section applies to both paid and payable amounts.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground regarding the disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC for the meat export division. However, it upheld the addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) concerning advertisement expenses, stating the section applies to both paid and payable amounts.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground regarding the disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC for the meat export division. However, it upheld the addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) concerning advertisement expenses, stating the section applies to both paid and payable amounts.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground regarding the disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC for the meat export division. However, it upheld the addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) concerning advertisement expenses, stating the section applies to both paid and payable amounts.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground regarding the disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC for the meat export division. However, it upheld the addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) concerning advertisement expenses, stating the section applies to both paid and payable amounts.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground regarding the disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC for the meat export division. However, it upheld the addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) concerning advertisement expenses, stating the section applies to both paid and payable amounts.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 10B is a procedural direction and is directory in nature. Since the assessee rectified the defect by filing the audit report within the stipulated time for removal of deficiency, they are eligible for the deduction under Section 11.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be perverse, noting that the assessee had accepted the income as 'Income from House Property' in a prior assessment year. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that there was a technical error in processing the return and that the assessee was registered under Section 12A. Therefore, the exemption claimed under Section 11 was allowable.

The Tribunal held that the trading in edible oil was not speculative. It also ruled that interest earned on FDRs used as margin money for obtaining Letters of Credit for business imports is business income, but interest from parties is to be taxed under 'Income from other sources'.

The Tribunal held that the trading in edible oil was not speculative. It also ruled that interest earned on FDRs used as margin money for obtaining Letters of Credit for business imports is business income, but interest from parties is to be taxed under 'Income from other sources'.

The Tribunal held that the department could not take a different view in the current year on identical facts as in the previous year, following the principle of consistency. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply an 8% net profit on the total milk sale of Rs. 18,80,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investor. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that similar issues regarding the same investor were accepted by the AO in previous assessment years, emphasizing the principle of consistency.

The Tribunal held that at the stage of granting registration under Section 12AA, the CIT(Exemptions) is primarily required to examine the objects of the trust and the genuineness of its activities. The CIT(Exemptions) should not delve into aspects that are to be examined by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the facts and had failed to disprove the assessee's claim of agricultural income. The documentary evidence regarding potato cultivation and cash flow was considered reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the additions were based on uncorroborated rough notes in a diary, which lacked evidentiary value. The interpretation of the figures by the authorities below was based on presumption and conjecture without supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the additions were based on uncorroborated rough notes in a diary, which lacked evidentiary value. The interpretation of the figures by the authorities below was based on presumption and conjecture without supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the additions were based on uncorroborated rough notes in a diary, which lacked evidentiary value. The interpretation of the figures by the authorities below was based on presumption and conjecture without supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the facts and had failed to disprove the assessee's claim of agricultural income. The documentary evidence regarding potato cultivation and cash flow was considered reasonable.

The Tribunal held that Rule 6DD(b) requires direct payment to the government, and payment through an intermediary agent does not qualify for the exception. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was justified.

The Tribunal held that the cash sales were made out of opening stock and purchases, and were already offered for taxation as revenue receipts, supported by audited books and VAT returns. The addition under Section 68 was deemed to be double taxation.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO's conclusion was based on suspicion rather than positive evidence.

The Tribunal found that crucial additional evidence, including a statement recorded under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee fulfilled the conditions under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The bad debts were considered income in AY 2013-14, and the bank had also written off the export bills.

The Tribunal held that the difference in the capital account was a mere clerical mistake and not indicative of concealed income. The Tribunal noted that the correct capital balance was reflected in the return and that the assessee had provided evidence to support the rectification.

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, stating that the assessment was completed without proper inquiries. The PCIT was competent to invoke revisional jurisdiction and direct the AO to conduct a fresh assessment after verifying all relevant facts and giving the assessee adequate opportunity.