ITAT Indore Judgments — July 2018

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the source of investment in promissory notes, confirming the addition. Regarding unaccounted purchases, the Tribunal found that the cost of goods sold exceeded sales, indicating undisclosed sales, and thus confirmed the addition.

The Tribunal held that while the dominant object of the society was charitable (running schools), the hostel activity, though ancillary, was commercial and hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). Therefore, exemption under Section 11 was denied only for the income from the hostel.

The Tribunal held that the assessee successfully proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the cash creditors for the Rs.40,00,000/- advance. The addition of Rs.5,600/- commission was confirmed with a direction to allow credit for TDS.

The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the agricultural income earned by M/s. NF Farms had been established in prior set-aside proceedings, and the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan and partner withdrawals were proven. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 of the Act were bad in law because they did not specify whether the proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, the penalties were cancelled.

The Tribunal held that MAT provisions were not applicable to the assessee for the assessment year in question, and the disallowance of interest income was not sustainable. The Tribunal also found that the disallowance of proportionate interest-free funds transferred to another company was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 of the Act were bad in law because they did not specify whether the proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, the penalties were cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 of the Act were bad in law because they did not specify whether the proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, the penalties were cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not considered the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Paramount Communication, which validated reopening based on information from external agencies. The Tribunal also noted procedural issues like lack of opportunity for cross-examination and non-adjudication of merits by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification. The AO needs to ascertain whether the Airport Authority of India disclosed the rent payment in its income tax return.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as the tax involved was below the Rs. 20 lacs limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The circular is binding on departmental officers.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This was based on a CBDT circular regarding low tax effect for filing appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This was based on the fact that the tax effect of Rs. 10,65,123/- was below the monetary limit of Rs. 20 lacs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that MAT provisions were not applicable to the assessee for the assessment year in question, and the disallowance of interest income was not sustainable. The Tribunal also found that the disallowance of proportionate interest-free funds transferred to another company was not justified.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable based on a circular regarding tax effect. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the addition on which penalty was levied was deleted in the quantum appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the penalty on cash credits due to the failure to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the addition on which penalty was levied was deleted in the quantum appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the penalty on cash credits due to the failure to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor.

The Tribunal held that additions made without any incriminating material unearthed during the search are not sustainable. However, an addition based on an admission of undisclosed income during the search was sustained.