ITAT Indore Judgments — June 2018

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer (AO). In the interest of natural justice, the matter was set aside to the AO to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide afresh.

The Tribunal held that the assessee appears to be not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Citing various judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal decided that the appeal cannot be kept pending indefinitely and should be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that interest income on bank deposits is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) if the deposits are made out of funds statutorily required to be maintained by the society. If the deposits are from surplus funds or for non-statutory liabilities, the interest is taxable as income from other sources.

The Tribunal found that the authorities below did not provide a clear justification for estimating the profit at 2% and lacked information on the preceding year's declared profit rate. Therefore, the Tribunal sustained an addition of Rs. 5 lakhs in lump sum in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal and it cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's name did not appear in the seized document for his daughter's admission, raising doubts about the revenue's action. The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the income from these businesses was already declared and accepted in the return of income filed by the assessee's brother, Shri Pushpendra Jain.

The Tribunal held that the payment was a business loss incurred due to commercial expediency to retain the client and secure future brokerage. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 3,78,440 was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's exclusive method of accounting for closing stock, following Supreme Court judgments, was correct and the addition was unjustified. It also upheld the deletion of interest disallowance, stating that maintaining cash for business expediency is not a reason for disallowance.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and cross-objections due to being barred by limitation. The Tribunal also dismissed other assessee appeals for non-prosecution. Revenue's appeals concerning PF/ESI payments and deletion of interest income were allowed, while others were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and cross-objections due to being barred by limitation and for non-prosecution. The revenue's appeals concerning PF/ESI payments and deletion of interest income were allowed, upholding the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's exclusive method of accounting for closing stock, following Supreme Court judgments, was correct and the addition was unjustified. It also upheld the deletion of interest disallowance, stating that maintaining cash for business expediency is not a reason for disallowance.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for a prior assessment year was remanded back to the AO for verification of integrated business activities. Following this precedent, the Tribunal remanded the current appeals back to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was barred by limitation and therefore illegal, vitiating the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for a prior assessment year was remanded back to the AO for verification of integrated business activities. Following this precedent, the Tribunal remanded the current appeals back to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for a prior assessment year was remanded back to the AO for verification of integrated business activities. Following this precedent, the Tribunal remanded the current appeals back to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the AO ought to have considered the details provided. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing verification of details and consideration of peak credits.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAA could not be levied if the assessee fulfilled all three conditions, including admitting to the undisclosed income and offering it as business income, and that the revenue had not asked specific questions regarding the manner of earning income. The Tribunal also noted that ambiguity in law should be interpreted in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAA could not be levied if the assessee fulfilled all three conditions, including admitting to the undisclosed income and offering it as business income, and that the revenue had not asked specific questions regarding the manner of earning income. The Tribunal also noted that ambiguity in law should be interpreted in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the AO ought to have considered the details provided. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing verification of details and consideration of peak credits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a liberal approach for substantial justice. It also held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present evidence before the CIT(A) to prove the building's use for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAA could not be levied if the assessee fulfilled all three conditions, including admitting to the undisclosed income and offering it as business income, and that the revenue had not asked specific questions regarding the manner of earning income. The Tribunal also noted that ambiguity in law should be interpreted in favour of the assessee.

The tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) had not applied his own mind and relied solely on the Assessing Officer's findings. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT for a fresh decision after affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the books of account and estimating the profit. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of estimation and when the charge is not specified.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities were not justified in confirming the penalty. This was due to the assessee furnishing purchase details, books of accounts not being rejected, and the assessee not being provided an opportunity for cross-examination of the alleged seller.

The Tribunal found that the cash deposits in HDFC Bank were adequately explained as being sourced from cash withdrawals from other bank accounts (ICICI and PNB) and were subsequently utilized for business expenses like loan installments and credit card payments.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the books of account and estimating the profit. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of estimation and when the charge is not specified.