ITAT Indore Judgments — May 2017

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in cancelling the penalty. Since the additions on which the penalty was levied were deleted in toto by the ITAT, the penalty order was not sustainable, irrespective of the Revenue's appeal to the High Court.

The Tribunal held that the addition for the loan was unsustainable as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of the lender's identity, creditworthiness, and the transaction's genuineness, relying on High Court precedents. However, the disallowance of labour and wages expenses was confirmed as the assessee's authorized representative had agreed to it due to discrepancies.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard, violating the principle of 'audi alteram partem'. Therefore, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that corpus donations received for a specific purpose, like building construction, are not taxable as income, even if the assessee is not registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in cancelling the penalty. Since the additions on which the penalty was levied were deleted in toto by the ITAT, the penalty order was not sustainable, irrespective of the Revenue's appeal to the High Court.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to Rs. 12,221/- by accepting 16% as a reasonable interest rate for loans from specified persons. The CIT(A) had considered the difficulties in obtaining loans from financial institutions and limited security options.

The Tribunal held that the principle of audi-alterem partem (natural justice) was violated as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard. The appeal was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions related to commission payments and interest on unsecured loans, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the genuineness of the transactions. The appeals and cross-objections were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions related to commission payments and interest on unsecured loans, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for genuineness and creditworthiness. The Tribunal also upheld the partial relief granted for travelling expenses.

The Tribunal held that the sale of agricultural land is not taxable as it is not a capital asset under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the deposit in the bank account arising from such sale cannot be treated as unexplained income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the exemption under Section 54B, finding sufficient evidence of agricultural use. The Tribunal also noted that the overall exemption under both sections should not exceed the net capital gains.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate opening capital, rent expenses, and other direct/office expenses. The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in rejecting the books of accounts and sustained a partial addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without providing a proper opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission, supported by an affidavit, that the cash deposits were out of withdrawals from his salary account in another bank. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the higher depreciation rate. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient details of rent received from hiring the machines, justifying the claim.

The Tribunal found no flaw in the orders of the lower authorities. It confirmed the 10% disallowance, agreeing that the assessee had not demonstrated that the previous year's disallowance was deleted or reduced.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a partywise bifurcation of cash payments, and the CIT(A) had verified that no single payment to an individual exceeded Rs. 20,000/- in a day. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. However, after considering the merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed concealed particulars of income by admitting bogus losses in shares, thus confirming the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. However, the assessee was entitled to claim additional depreciation on the windmill and power plant as the generation of electricity is akin to manufacture.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as it did not meet the revised monetary limit for appeals. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s confirmation of additions, deeming the explanation for cash deposits to be a concocted story.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as it did not meet the revised monetary limit for appeals. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s confirmation of additions, deeming the explanation for cash deposits to be a concocted story.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Since the appeal cannot be kept pending indefinitely, it is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for warehouse payment and deferred revenue expenses, relying on previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case. For Section 43B, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance, allowing the amount paid before the due date.

The Tribunal found that the issue of foreign travel expenses was not properly examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with a direction to allow the assessee to file all evidence and afford an opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had partly allowed the claim without sufficient reasoning.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the date of agreement or the date of execution of the sale deed should be considered for adopting the Stamp Registration Office (SRO) value under Section 50C of the Act is settled in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in Sanjeev Lal and Smt. Shantilal Motilal V/s. CIT, as well as coordinate bench decisions of the ITAT at Visakhapatnam. It is settled law that the SRO value as on the date of the agreement of sale should be considered for the computation of capital gains. In the instant case, the assessee had entered into an agreement to sell the land in AY 2011-12 and received an advance. The sale deed was executed in AY 2012-13 after obtaining necessary permissions. Therefore, the guideline value prevailing in AY 2011-12 should be adopted. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 68,98,200/- made by the AO under Section 50C. The ground of appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, held that the issuance of a completion certificate after the cut-off date, even if mentioning a completion date before the cut-off, does not fulfill the conditions of Section 80IB(10). The requirement for a completion certificate is mandatory.

The Tribunal held that the additions were made on an estimated basis, and the assessee had not concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The penalty was levied on an estimated profit, which is not sustainable when the income itself is estimated.

The Tribunal held that the additions were made on an estimated basis, and the assessee had not concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The penalty was levied on an estimated profit, which is not sustainable when the income itself is estimated.