ITAT Indore Judgments — December 2017

The Tribunal found that the AO ought to have verified the assessee's claim regarding the retracted surrender. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly determined that a substantial part of the blasting expenses was for material, not labour, and thus not subject to TDS. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning regarding the diesel expenses, finding no contrary evidence from the Revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO had not disputed the identity, genuineness, or creditworthiness of the share subscribers. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the revenue to examine the source of investment in the hands of the subscribers.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of the capital asset occurred on May 31, 2007, in FY 2007-08, relevant to AY 2008-09, based on the agreement to sell, payment of consideration, and transfer of possession. Therefore, reopening the assessment for AY 2009-10 was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that mere filing of an appeal is insufficient; it requires effective prosecution. Given the assessees' conduct, the appeals were deemed not pursued.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's consistent non-appearance indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Filing an appeal requires effective prosecution, not just submission.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's consistent non-appearance indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Filing an appeal requires effective prosecution, not just submission.

The Tribunal held that mere filing of an appeal is insufficient; it requires effective prosecution. Given the assessees' conduct, the appeals were deemed not pursued.