ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal held that if the deductees had paid taxes as evidenced by Form 26A, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should not be made, especially considering the retrospective nature of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). The matter was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that if the deductees had paid taxes as evidenced by Form 26A, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should not be made, especially considering the retrospective nature of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). The matter was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal noted that Section 44AD allows for presumptive taxation without detailed accounts and that the assessee's counsel's hospitalization was a reasonable cause for delay. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the medical documents did not sufficiently prove the assessee was unfit to perform daily duties or file the appeal. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the condonation application.

The Tribunal held that if the deductees had paid taxes as evidenced by Form 26A, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should not be made, especially considering the retrospective nature of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). The matter was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the assessee's age and lack of technical knowledge. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for a fresh adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The AO was also directed to consider the cost of acquisition and indexation for computing capital gains.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made in completed assessments in the absence of any incriminating material found during a search. Since the assessments for the relevant years were unabated and no incriminating material was found, the additions were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made in completed assessments in the absence of any incriminating material found during a search. Since the assessments for the relevant years were unabated and no incriminating material was found, the additions were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made in completed assessments in the absence of any incriminating material found during a search. Since the assessments for the relevant years were unabated and no incriminating material was found, the additions were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made in completed assessments in the absence of any incriminating material found during a search. Since the assessments for the relevant years were unabated and no incriminating material was found, the additions were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking Section 263. The compensation received by the assessee for land acquisition, including enhanced compensation, was demonstrated to have a clear source and manner. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the CIT's order.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek revival of the appeals if the settlement resolution failed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the issues on merit. It was also found that the AO did not follow the correct procedure while making ad-hoc disallowances.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the credit of TDS deducted under Section 194Q, as they are acting as a 'Kacha Arhtia' (commission agent). The turnover related to purchase and sale on behalf of the principal is not the assessee's turnover, and thus, the TDS deducted on such transactions should not be disallowed. The disallowance made by CPC Bengaluru was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence, having material bearing, ought to have been admitted by the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the AO for de novo assessment with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek revival of the appeals if the settlement resolution failed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek revival of the appeals if the settlement resolution failed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenditure was not sustainable as the assessee had sufficient surplus funds to cover the interest-free advances. The addition for unvouched expenses was also deleted, as the AO's disallowance was sweeping and not based on specific errors in bills/vouchers.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the credit of TDS deducted under Section 194Q, as they are acting as a 'Kacha Arhtia' (commission agent). The turnover related to purchase and sale on behalf of the principal is not the assessee's turnover, and thus, the TDS deducted on such transactions should not be disallowed. The disallowance made by CPC Bengaluru was deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute was resolved under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the assessee failed to get the full benefit of the scheme due to technicalities.

The Tribunal considered the applications for withdrawal and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. It was clarified that if the assessees failed to get the full benefit due to technicalities, they could revive the appeals by filing an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly concluded that the cash withdrawal could not be treated as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The reopening of assessment by the AO was done without proper verification under Section 148A and by invoking incorrect provisions.

The Tribunal considered the applications for withdrawal and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. It was clarified that if the assessees failed to get the full benefit due to technicalities, they could revive the appeals by filing an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute was resolved under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the assessee failed to get the full benefit of the scheme due to technicalities.

The Tribunal considered the applications for withdrawal and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. It was clarified that if the assessees failed to get the full benefit due to technicalities, they could revive the appeals by filing an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal considered the applications for withdrawal and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. It was clarified that if the assessees failed to get the full benefit due to technicalities, they could revive the appeals by filing an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in business with duly reflected cash sales in the cash book and VAT returns. The accounts were audited without defects, and the assessee had sufficient cash balance. The addition by the AO was based on mere statistical inferences without evidence of non-genuine sales, and deleting it was justified.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263. Regarding the increase in capital, the Tribunal noted that the PCIT himself acknowledged that the material activities leading to the opening balance occurred in earlier Assessment Years (2012-13 to 2014-15), not in the impugned AY 2015-16. Since the returns for those earlier years were accepted by the Department, the closing balance of AY 2014-15 became the opening balance for AY 2015-16, and this accepted position could not be disturbed by the PCIT. Therefore, the AO was not at fault for not making additions for AY 2015-16. Concerning the second issue (sales turnover mismatch), the Tribunal observed that the case was selected for limited scrutiny on specific issues, and the sales turnover mismatch was not one of them. The AO is only bound to examine issues for which the case was selected. Therefore, the AO's order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to revenue on this ground. The Tribunal quashed the order of the PCIT under Section 263.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and deleted the penalty imposed by the AO for non-compliance with notices under Sections 143(2)/142(1). The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the failure to e-file Form-10 was a mere procedural irregularity, especially considering it was the first year of mandatory e-filing and the assessee had made substantial compliance. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claim.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings based on the principle that no new issues could be raised if the original addition was not made. Citing jurisdictional High Court judgments, the Tribunal found the AO had the power to examine other issues.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were substantiated by the payment made to Idea Cellular Ltd. and were supported by Form 26AS, which showed commission income with TDS. Therefore, the deposits could not be considered income from undisclosed sources.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme and the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs from Shri Jagpal Singh was unsustainable due to discrepancies in the agreement and the failure to produce him. However, the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs from Shri Azaib Singh was deleted as the assessee provided sufficient evidence and explanation.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, considering the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The Tribunal clarified that if the assessee failed to avail the full benefit of the Scheme due to technicalities, either party could apply to revive the appeals under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act within the prescribed limitation period.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, considering the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The Tribunal clarified that if the assessee failed to avail the full benefit of the Scheme due to technicalities, either party could apply to revive the appeals under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act within the prescribed limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the remand report based on inquiries made with US authorities regarding share application money. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of share application money back to the AO for a fresh order.

The Tribunal held that the failure to e-file Form-10 was a mere procedural irregularity, especially considering it was the first year of mandatory e-filing and the assessee had made substantial compliance. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claim.

The Tribunal held that there was a clerical error in the Tax Audit Report and the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay. The case was restored to the AO to verify payment dates and restrict disallowance to the extent of delay.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the sole evidence was a retracted statement from a third party. The AO failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice and failing to establish any expenditure incurred by the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, considering it infructuous due to the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. It was clarified that if the assessee faces technical issues in availing the full benefit of the scheme, either party could apply under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act to revive the appeal within the scheme's limitation period.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Regarding the disallowance of interest expenditure, the Tribunal found that the AO failed to demonstrate that the interest-bearing funds were not used for business purposes, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion. Similarly, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to TDS mismatch and sundry creditors, finding the AO's reasoning to be beyond comprehension.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had sufficiently explained the sources of the cash deposits, including opening cash in hand, withdrawals from FDRs and bank accounts, proceeds from asset sales, and gifts. It was noted that the AO failed to properly examine these explanations or compute the peak deposits, instead focusing on minor discrepancies in the submitted Cash Flow Statement. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that no addition was warranted, deleting the addition of Rs. 48,10,000/-.

The Tribunal held that for movable properties, a transfer is effected by mere delivery, and since the assessee had parted with possession, the transaction was completed in the relevant year. It was noted that the genuineness of the transaction was not in doubt, and non-receipt of full consideration only grants the seller a right to recover the balance. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant the STCL claim and re-compute the income accordingly.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not conduct proper investigation, relying solely on information from the Director of Income Tax (I&CI) without collecting crucial documents like the Purchase Deed. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's negligence in not presenting documents earlier. Due to the AO's failure in due diligence, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. The AO's reasons for reopening were contradictory and based on wrong facts. The AO first presumed no return was filed and then acknowledged it was filed but not scrutinized, which is insufficient grounds for reopening under Section 147.

The Tribunal held that the Audit Report was filed within the time prescribed by the Act, as evidenced by the uploading on 25/09/2022. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the relief claimed.