ITAT Indore Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as the AO failed to tick the relevant clause for the default. It also found merit in the assessee's contention that no expenses were incurred for earning exempt income, thus the AO was not justified in invoking Section 14A for penalty.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were genuine and not sham, thus deleting the additions made under Section 68. However, it was found that the shares were held for less than 12 months, meaning the gains were short-term capital gains, not long-term capital gains eligible for exemption.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were genuine and not sham, thus deleting the additions made under Section 68. However, it was found that the shares were held for less than 12 months, meaning the gains were short-term capital gains, not long-term capital gains eligible for exemption.

The Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was to allow for the examination of the original sale agreement dated January 8, 2004, to determine the actual date of purchase and consequently the nature of the capital gain.

The Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and remanded the matter back to the PCIT for fresh proceedings. The PCIT was directed to provide the assessee with sufficient opportunity and to examine the documents related to the unsecured loan.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were genuine and not sham, thus deleting the additions made under Section 68. However, it was found that the shares were held for less than 12 months, meaning the gains were short-term capital gains, not long-term capital gains eligible for exemption.

The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to PF & ESIC, if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is allowable as a business expenditure. This decision was based on High Court judgments and the dismissal of a related SLP by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. It restricted the disallowance on low household expenses, deleted additions on cash deposits in the bank as they were explained by cash flow and opening balance, and deleted additions on agricultural income. However, some additions were confirmed, and penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal held that since Section 115BBE was not in existence at the time and the issue was debatable with divergent judicial views, the penalty should not be sustained.

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the CIT(A) as the issues were squarely covered by previous decisions of the ITAT and jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case. The Revenue could not present any contrary material.

The Tribunal held that penalties paid to recognized commodity exchanges for smooth conduct of business and adherence to regulations are not penalties for committing an offence prohibited by law. Therefore, such payments should be allowed as business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to PF & ESIC, if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is allowable as a business expenditure. This decision was based on High Court judgments and the dismissal of a related SLP by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. It restricted the disallowance on low household expenses, deleted additions on cash deposits in the bank as they were explained by cash flow and opening balance, and deleted additions on agricultural income. However, some additions were confirmed, and penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal held that since Section 115BBE was not in existence at the time and the issue was debatable with divergent judicial views, the penalty should not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the provision for overdue interest was allowable as it was covered by a previous ITAT decision. However, the special reserve was not allowable as it was covered by a previous ITAT decision against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT instructions regarding unseized jewellery should be interpreted harmoniously with Indian culture and traditions, and thus should extend to silver articles. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 75,278/- for silver articles was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to Rs. 3,47,930, considering the specific details of the short-term investment and the nexus with borrowed funds. The judgment in Goetze India Ltd. was deemed not applicable as the issue was about correct calculation, not filing a revised return.

The Tribunal held that merely claiming a deduction which is disallowed, especially when the issue is debatable and a substantial question of law is pending before the Apex Court, does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that merely claiming a deduction which is disallowed, especially when the issue is debatable and a substantial question of law is pending before the Apex Court, does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that merely claiming a deduction which is disallowed, especially when the issue is debatable and a substantial question of law is pending before the Apex Court, does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted by the ITAT, the penalty levied on that addition would not survive. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient accumulated funds and agricultural income to explain the cash deposits and alleged unaccounted investment. However, the addition for interest income was confirmed as no plausible reason was given for advancing funds without charging interest.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly adjudicated the facts and had failed to consider various submissions and documents filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside all issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without considering the merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly adjudicated the facts and had failed to consider various submissions and documents filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside all issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without examining the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without examining the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, held that the addition on account of delayed payment of PF & ESI contributions should be deleted. The payments were made before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be penalized for the truck owner's false declaration in Form 15I, as the assessee acted in good faith. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified when the assessee received a duly filled Form 15I.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in these cases was less than Rs. 20 lakhs, as per CBDT instructions. Following these instructions and judicial precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(vii)(a) is allowable only to the extent of the amount written off in the books of accounts. This decision followed a previous ruling by a co-ordinate bench on a similar issue.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in these cases was less than Rs. 20 lakhs, as per CBDT instructions. Following these instructions and judicial precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in these cases was less than Rs. 20 lakhs, as per CBDT instructions. Following these instructions and judicial precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that registration under the MP Public Trust Act is not a mandatory requirement for obtaining registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. The CIT erred in placing sole reliance on this aspect.

The Tribunal noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously deleted the quantum addition of Rs. 1,32,76,000/-. Since the basis for the penalty (the addition) was removed, the penalty was no longer sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lakhs, as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the Revenue was not required to pursue the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 20 lakhs, and as per CBDT instructions, the Revenue was not expected to pursue such appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on preliminary grounds.