ITAT Amritsar Judgments — February 2025

7 orders · Page 1 of 1

SATIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs DCIT, ACIT CIRCLE 1, BATHINDA

ITA 527/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the method adopted by the Assessee for determining the arm's length price was correct and the adjustments made by the AO were not in line with the Income Tax Act. The Assessee's appeal on the issue of transfer pricing of steam was allowed. The Assessee's appeal regarding CSR contributions was dismissed, while the appeal on deemed income was allowed.

SHRI NITIN AIMA,SHRINAGAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR

ITA 83/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2025AY 2015-16N/A

HINDVEE SMALL FINANCE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs ITO WARD 1(3) JAMMU, JAMMU

ITA 215/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in rejecting the documentary evidence provided by the assessee without proper verification or independent inquiry. The Tribunal noted that the cash collected was deposited within a short period after 8th November 2016, which was consistent with the assessee's business operations and the nature of cash collection from widely spread customers. The addition was based on presumption and assumption, which is not legally tenable without disproving the authenticity of the evidence.

HARVINDER SINGH BULLAR,VPO RANJITGARH, MUKTSAR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR

ITA 573/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit of Rs. 61,50,000/- was from the sale proceeds of agricultural lands held by the assessee as a custodian and was contemporaneously deposited. The Tribunal also accepted the cash deposit of Rs. 2,52,000/- as arising from agricultural income. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not the beneficial owner of the funds and had not gained from them.

ROHIT 62-SHRI RAM AVENUE MAJITHA ROAD AMRITSAR,ROHIT vs SMT ANJNA KAPOOR INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4) AMRITSAR, INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA 363/ASR/2023[Assessment Year 2017-2018]Status: Disposed10 Feb 2025Allowed

The Tribunal found that ex-parte orders were passed at both lower stages and the assessee was denied an opportunity to explain the source of the cash deposit. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was restored to the AO to pass a fresh assessment order.

ABDUL MAJID WARD NO 6 MOHALLA RADIO STATSION HAVELI POONCH ,POONCH vs ROMESH KUMAR SHARMA INCOME TAX OFFICER JAMMU, JAMMU

ITA 374/ASR/2023[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018]Status: Disposed10 Feb 2025Allowed

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority should have issued a deficiency letter before refusing to admit the appeal for violation of advance tax payment. The proviso to section 249(4)(b) allows for waiver applications if the appellant is prevented from making payment. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal.

S.D SABHA GAUSHALA,FEROZEPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER , FEROZEPUR

ITA 506/ASR/2024[2024-25]Status: Disposed3 Feb 2025AY 2024-25Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without considering CBDT Circular No. 7/2024, which extended the due date for filing Form No. 10AB. The circular clearly states that pending applications, where no order was passed before its issuance, should be treated as valid.