ITAT Indore Judgments — September 2018

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the books of account due to the omission of expenses, which distorted the profit. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit based on past history and the impact of the omitted expenses.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the case was less than Rs. 20 lakhs. Following CBDT instructions and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal found the Revenue's appeal not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that additions were made on presumption rather than incriminating material found during the search. The AO failed to discharge the onus to establish that the amounts constituted income of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer for determining the fair market value of the industrial land, especially when the assessee raised objections about encroachment and disputes. The CIT(A) also erred in not considering the additional evidence and making a reference.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal on vehicle expenses, reducing the disallowance. It also partly allowed the revenue's appeal on miscellaneous expenses, sustaining a 5% disallowance. Other grounds were either dismissed or allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the addition for low household withdrawals, finding no inconsistency in the CIT(A)'s order. However, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-examination due to the complex nature of transactions and the agreement of both parties.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal on vehicle expenses, reducing the disallowance. It also partly allowed the revenue's appeal on miscellaneous expenses, sustaining a 5% disallowance. Other grounds were either dismissed or allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the bank account and the transactions (cash deposits and fixed deposits) belonged to the society, not the individual assessee, and were duly reflected in the society's records.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the books of account due to the omission of expenses, which distorted the profit. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit based on past history and the impact of the omitted expenses.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the case was less than Rs. 20 lakhs, making the appeal not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on preliminary grounds.

The Tribunal accepted the request of both parties to set aside all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to be compliant with future notices and furnish necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the books of account due to the omission of expenses, which distorted the profit. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit based on past history and the impact of the omitted expenses.

The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition on share application money, citing a previous decision in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of exchange rate differences, finding no business compulsion for the foreign loan and lack of bifurcation for its utilization. The addition related to Section 14A was also upheld, relying on a Supreme Court judgment regarding trade investments.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the books of account due to the omission of expenses, which distorted the profit. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit based on past history and the impact of the omitted expenses.

The Tribunal held that the appeal cannot be kept pending indefinitely if the assessee is not interested in pursuing it. Based on the lack of appearance and the principles of natural justice, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 20 lakhs, and as per CBDT instructions, the Revenue should not have pressed the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on preliminary grounds.