ITAT Indore Judgments — May 2018

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have sought a remand report from the AO, especially since the assessment was made under Section 144 and new documents were filed during appellate proceedings. Therefore, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection as not pressed. For the revenue's appeal, it upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of interest disallowance under Section 14A, finding investments were made from own capital. It also upheld the deletion of penalty and prior period expenses, deeming them regular business expenditures.

The Tribunal held that gains from the purchase and sale of mutual funds should be treated as capital gains, not business income, following jurisdictional High Court decisions. Additions for low household expenses were partially reduced, and the addition for sundry creditors was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete a major part of the addition, finding that the assessee had indeed included excise duty in its closing stock valuation. The AO's addition was based on an audit objection without sufficient supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer acted within his jurisdiction by conducting wider scrutiny after obtaining approval from the administrative Commissioner, as per CBDT circulars. However, the issues related to additions on account of short-term capital gain and unexplained investment were set aside to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) is debatable and requires detailed inquiry. Therefore, disallowance cannot be made through an intimation under Section 143(1).

The Tribunal held that the issue of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) is debatable and requires detailed inquiry. Therefore, disallowance cannot be made through an intimation under Section 143(1) and must be done through a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3).

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeals and that appeals cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeals and that appeals cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions are made solely on the basis of deeming provisions like Section 50C, especially when the assessee has disclosed the transaction and the sale consideration in the registered sale deed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeals and that appeals cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition of Rs. 13,20,000/- was deleted by a previous order of the ITAT, the penalty levied on that addition would not survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100%. The AO had imposed the maximum penalty without fully appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were illegal and bad in law due to their non-specific nature. Consequently, the penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were illegal and bad in law due to their non-specific nature. Consequently, the penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were illegal and bad in law due to their non-specific nature. Consequently, the penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity as the Revenue failed to point out specific defects in the expenses or salary/wages. The audited books and lack of specific discrepancies supported the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were illegal and bad in law due to their non-specific nature. Consequently, the penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not justified when assessments are completed under Section 143(3), especially when there was subsequent compliance. The initial defaults were considered ignored due to later compliance.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not justified when assessments are completed under Section 143(3) and there has been subsequent compliance, even if there were initial defaults.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not justified when assessments are completed under Section 143(3), especially when there was subsequent compliance. The initial defaults were considered ignored due to later compliance.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for penalty proceedings and set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to be compliant and provide necessary evidence and submissions.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not justified when assessments are completed under Section 143(3), especially when there was subsequent compliance. The initial defaults were considered ignored due to later compliance.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not justified when assessments are completed under Section 143(3), especially when there was subsequent compliance. The initial defaults were considered ignored due to later compliance.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not justified when assessments are completed under Section 143(3), especially when there was subsequent compliance. The initial defaults were considered ignored due to later compliance.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not justified when assessments are completed under Section 143(3), especially when there was subsequent compliance. The initial defaults were considered ignored due to later compliance.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not justified when assessments are completed under Section 143(3), especially when there was subsequent compliance. The initial defaults were considered ignored due to later compliance.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not justified when assessments are completed under Section 143(3), especially when there was subsequent compliance. The initial defaults were considered ignored due to later compliance.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not justified when assessments are completed under Section 143(3), especially when there was subsequent compliance. The initial defaults were considered ignored due to later compliance.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not justified when assessments are completed under Section 143(3), especially when there was subsequent compliance. The initial defaults were considered ignored due to later compliance.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not justified when assessments are completed under Section 143(3), especially when there was subsequent compliance. The initial defaults were considered ignored due to later compliance.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were illegal and bad in law due to their non-specific nature. Consequently, the penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were illegal and bad in law due to their non-specific nature. Consequently, the penalty orders were quashed.