ITAT Indore Judgments — November 2018

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO was not justified in making the assessment under Section 154. The assessee regularly followed the mercantile system of accounting, and the tax audit report's mention of cash system was an inadvertent error.

The Tribunal held that since the payees had disclosed the interest income in their respective income tax returns and paid tax thereon, no disallowance was warranted under Section 40(a)(ia). The amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) was considered declaratory and curative, with retrospective effect.

The tribunal held that an appeal requires not just filing but also diligent prosecution. Since the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal, it could not be kept pending indefinitely.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions, particularly regarding the nature of the transaction as a sale of capital asset rather than business. The Assessing Officer was directed to conduct a de-novo assessment after proper inquiry.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was done due to the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order and the pendency of a similar issue in the assessee's brother's case.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and considering the assessee's request unopposed by the revenue, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication after verifying the assessee's contentions and conducting necessary investigations.

The ITAT condoned the delay, finding the reason for delay to be reasonable. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the lower appellate authority and that the order was passed ex-parte without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not called for as the assessee had pointed out that the transactions were duly recorded in the cash book with narration. The Revenue did not place any adverse material to suggest the entries were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The order was not decided on merits, which is not justifiable.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order was passed ex-parte due to the assessee's absence, and the reasons provided were credible. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a decision on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case and without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the authorities below had not considered the claim for deduction under Section 54. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a proper and effective opportunity of being heard. The order was not passed on merits, which is not justifiable.

The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of registration under Section 12AA and rejection of application under Section 80G were justified. The trust failed to demonstrate that its activities were genuinely charitable for the public at large, instead favoring a limited social group based on recommendations.

The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of registration under Section 12AA and rejection of application under Section 80G were justified. The trust failed to demonstrate that its activities were genuinely charitable for the public at large, instead favoring a limited social group based on recommendations.

The Tribunal held that while the AO can estimate profit based on turnover after rejecting books, additions for balance sheet items like sundry creditors and unsecured loans are permissible if not explained. The CIT(A) erred in deleting these additions solely because book results were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the gross receipts of each educational institution run by the assessee must be examined individually. If the receipts of each institution are less than Rs. 1 crore, exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) is available without requiring approval under Section 10(23C)(vi). The matter was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that rental income from unsold properties, even for a real estate developer, should be treated as income from house property, not business income. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for deductions under Section 24.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of selling and administrative expenses as not pressed by the assessee. Regarding the book profit, the Tribunal noted that the format of the assessee's Profit & Loss account deviated from the prescribed format under the Companies Act. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify the audited balance sheet against Schedule-VI of the Companies Act and obtain a certificate from the auditor regarding the adjustment of sundry balances written off.

The Tribunal held that rental income from unsold properties, even for a real estate developer, should be treated as income from house property, not business income. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for deductions under Section 24.

The Tribunal held that rental income from unsold properties, even for a real estate developer, should be treated as income from house property, not business income. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for deductions under Section 24.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of selling and administrative expenses as not pressed by the assessee. Regarding the book profit, the Tribunal noted that the format of the assessee's Profit & Loss account deviated from the prescribed format under the Companies Act. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify the audited balance sheet against Schedule-VI of the Companies Act and obtain a certificate from the auditor regarding the adjustment of sundry balances written off.