ITAT Indore Judgments — December 2018

The Tribunal held that the IOC norms for evaporation are guidelines, not mandatory standards, and the claimed shortage was not excessively high to question the genuineness of the books. The AO should have accepted the audited book results supported by quantitative details.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the director had been consistently paid remuneration in the past, possessed relevant qualifications and experience, and the Assessing Officer had himself allowed 50% of the remuneration. The Tribunal found no material on record to prove the payment was unfair or unreasonable.

The Tribunal held that the cash credits were explained as advances for plot bookings, as sale deeds were registered in the names of the parties. For the disallowed cash expenditure, the Tribunal found that while some vouchers were produced, a 10% disallowance was justified.

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) disallowance applies only when an expenditure is incurred. Since the payment was for a capital asset and not claimed as expenditure, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the case was below Rs. 20 lakhs, as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the revenue should not have pressed the appeal. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the case was below Rs. 20 lakhs, as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the revenue should not have pressed the appeal. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the forfeiture of earnest money was a business loss incurred in the course of business operations, not a capital expenditure. The amount was deposited for the purpose of securing a business contract to earn profit.

The Tribunal held that the stamp valuation on the date of the agreement to sale, not the sale deed, was relevant for Section 50C. It also directed the deletion of additions for unexplained investment and cash deposits, finding that the source of funds was sufficiently explained or not properly verified by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the stamp valuation on the date of the agreement to sale, not the sale deed, was relevant for Section 50C. It also directed the deletion of additions for unexplained investment and cash deposits, finding that the source of funds was sufficiently explained or not properly verified by the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the differences in purchases. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s finding.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the limb of the section under which the penalty was being imposed. This failure to specify the charge rendered the penalty proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the foreign exchange loss, finding it allowable as per Supreme Court judgments. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal, following its own earlier decisions, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to allow depreciation on the disallowed portion of the expenditure as per law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict additions related to sundry creditors, finding that the AO had made errors in assessment and that the CIT(A) had correctly analyzed the facts and evidence. The Tribunal also dismissed grounds related to the admission of additional evidence and estimated profit.

The Tribunal held that the notice initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict additions related to sundry creditors, finding that the AO had made errors in assessment and that the CIT(A) had correctly analyzed the facts and evidence. The Tribunal also dismissed grounds related to the admission of additional evidence and estimated profit.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's allowance of expenses and set-off of loss against surrendered income, without demonstrating a link to business receipts, was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was invalid because the AO of the searched person did not record the necessary satisfaction. This lack of satisfaction is a mandatory prerequisite for invoking Section 153C.