ITAT Indore Judgments — August 2018

The tribunal partly allowed the appeals, deleting additions related to share application money from one specific company based on previous tribunal rulings. For penalty proceedings, the tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to defective notices.

The tribunal partly allowed the appeals, deleting additions related to share application money from one specific company based on previous tribunal rulings. For penalty proceedings, the tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to defective notices.

The tribunal partly allowed the appeals, deleting additions related to share application money from one specific company based on previous tribunal rulings. For penalty proceedings, the tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to defective notices.

The tribunal partly allowed the appeals, deleting additions related to share application money from one specific company based on previous tribunal rulings. For penalty proceedings, the tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to defective notices.

The tribunal partly allowed the appeals, deleting additions related to share application money from one specific company based on previous tribunal rulings. For penalty proceedings, the tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to defective notices.

The tribunal partly allowed the appeals, deleting additions related to share application money from one specific company based on previous tribunal rulings. For penalty proceedings, the tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to defective notices.

The tribunal partly allowed the appeals, deleting additions related to share application money from one specific company based on previous tribunal rulings. For penalty proceedings, the tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to defective notices.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction in enhancing the assessment by disallowing the deduction under Section 80IB(11C) on amounts surrendered during the survey, as this issue did not arise from the assessment order. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals regarding TDS disallowances where the deductee had disclosed the income.

The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings were rightly initiated. However, it set aside the addition for investment in the house property, finding that the disclosed investment by the assessee and his wife exceeded the estimated cost of construction based on the permissible area and rates. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify TDS and allow rebate under Section 88.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction in enhancing the assessment by disallowing the deduction under Section 80IB(11C) on amounts surrendered during the survey, as this issue did not arise from the assessment order. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals regarding TDS disallowances where the deductee had disclosed the income.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had acted merely on suspicion and had not properly appreciated the evidence. The father-in-law had categorically owned the money, and there was evidence suggesting the wife was in the process of purchasing property, with the father-in-law having sufficient funds for the gift.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, finding that the assessee failed to demonstrate that its activities during the relevant year were in line with its objects. The acceptance of a large donation without specifying its object and giving interest-free advances to related parties were considered violations.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction in enhancing the assessment by disallowing the deduction under Section 80IB(11C) on amounts surrendered during the survey, as this issue did not arise from the assessment order. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals regarding TDS disallowances where the deductee had disclosed the income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had specified the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived by stating it pertained to business activities. Since the AO did not call for further substantiation and the income was accepted, the conditions for immunity under Section 271AAA(2) were met.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had specified that the undisclosed income pertained to business activities, which was sufficient to meet the conditions of Section 271AAA(2). Therefore, the penalty was not attracted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding prior period expenses, finding insufficient evidence to support the claim of crystallization. However, it allowed the appeal concerning un-accounted receipts and ad-hoc disallowances, stating they were made without material evidence.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea for a fresh adjudication, noting that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present evidence. Consequently, both the quantum addition and the penalty were set aside to the file of the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea for a fresh adjudication, noting that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present evidence. Consequently, both the quantum addition and the penalty were set aside to the file of the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that Section 36(1)(viia) and Section 36(1)(viii) deal with distinct items (provision for bad debts vs. special reserve for specific purposes) and cannot be equated. The assessee's attempt to re-characterize the reserve from one section to another after initial disallowance was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in applying the percentage completion method to the assessee, who was merely a landowner and not a developer. The assessee's consistently followed project completion method, recognizing revenue upon registration of sale deeds, was valid prior to the insertion of Section 43CB.

The Tribunal held that the income from renting out property to an independent third party is not covered under Section 80P(2)(a)(ia) as it is not part of the society's core business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members. The income was considered 'other income' and not operational income.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not clearly specified the legal basis for deleting the penalty and that merely furnishing details does not absolve the assessee if those details are inaccurate. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of Mandi Shulk and interest should be deleted as the assessee provided evidence and the authorities below did not conduct proper inquiry. Additions on account of telephone and sundry expenses were deleted as they were made on an ad-hoc basis without supporting evidence. The addition for non-deduction of TDS was also deleted as the assessee submitted Form 15G.