ITAT Indore Judgments — January 2019

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for statements processed prior to this date.

The Tribunal found that the revenue had not disputed that similar entities (sister concerns) had been granted registration. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision, directing verification of the registration granted to sister concerns and their objectives.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lakhs as per CBDT instructions. Following the instructions and Supreme Court judgments, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request, unopposed by the revenue, to set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is to provide an opportunity to the assessee to prove that no interest-bearing funds were used for interest-free loans.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserved an opportunity to cross-examine the sellers regarding the on-money payments. For the jewellery, the Tribunal confirmed the addition for unexplained gold jewellery above the permissible limit.

The Tribunal held that the amount in question was duly accounted for in the assessee's books, comprising fixed deposits and accrued interest. Therefore, it could not be treated as unaccounted income from an undisclosed source.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce all four creditors for examination of their identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were bad in law due to a defective notice lacking specific charges, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment. However, for one appeal concerning Section 271AAB, the penalty was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were bad in law due to a defective notice lacking specific charges, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment. However, for one appeal concerning Section 271AAB, the penalty was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were bad in law due to a defective notice lacking specific charges, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment. However, for one appeal concerning Section 271AAB, the penalty was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were bad in law due to a defective notice lacking specific charges, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment. However, for one appeal concerning Section 271AAB, the penalty was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were bad in law due to a defective notice lacking specific charges, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment. However, for one appeal concerning Section 271AAB, the penalty was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were bad in law due to a defective notice lacking specific charges, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment. However, for one appeal concerning Section 271AAB, the penalty was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the effective date of transfer was the date of registration (10.04.2007) because the conditions for transfer under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, such as possession and substantial payment, were not met as of the agreement date. Consequently, the capital gain was correctly treated as long-term, and the exemption under Section 54F was allowable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were bad in law due to a defective notice lacking specific charges, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment. However, for one appeal concerning Section 271AAB, the penalty was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal found the notice to be a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that the eligibility of the CNC Drilling machine for 80% depreciation needed re-examination. It was unclear if the machine qualified as a waste conversion device or a machine used to manufacture such devices.

The Tribunal held that the transaction was not a slump sale as it involved only land and building, not the entire undertaking. However, it set aside the issue of applicability of Section 50C to leasehold property to the CIT(A) for fresh decision. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction claim under Section 43B for interest paid.

The Tribunal held that the income from share trading should be treated as short-term capital gains, not business income. It also deleted the disallowance made under Section 14A, as no expenditure was claimed in the profit and loss account attributable to exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were bad in law due to a defective notice lacking specific charges, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment. However, for one appeal concerning Section 271AAB, the penalty was confirmed.

The Tribunal found 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 held that the Revenue should not have pursued these appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) ought to have made inquiries from other family members regarding the ownership of the jewellery. Since no such inquiries were made, the addition was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had provided a finding of fact that the assessee, Smt. Bilkis Bai Badnawarwala, initially had a 50% share in the property. As per Hibba Nama under Muslim Personal Law, she transferred 25% of her share to her son, Mr. Kalimuddin Badnawarwala. The CIT(A) observed that all legal formalities, including registration before the Sub-Registrar, were completed for the 25% share transferred by the appellant and the 25% share transferred by Mr. Kalimuddin. The CIT(A) recalculated the capital gain by considering the sale price at Rs. 37,50,000/- (25% of total consideration) and the purchase price at Rs. 8,28,250/- for the assessee's 25% share. This resulted in a Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. -1,03,206/-, leading to the deletion of the AO's addition. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s finding, as the Revenue did not rebut it with adverse material. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue were rejected, and the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that while penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is generally not leviable on additions made solely under the deeming fiction of Section 50C, the assessee had failed to disclose a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- received in addition to the disclosed sale consideration. Therefore, penalty was sustained to that extent.

The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act is not maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal as per Section 253 of the Act. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in these cases was less than Rs. 20 lakhs, as per CBDT instructions. Following these instructions and various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had provided a finding of fact that the assessee, Smt. Bilkis Bai Badnawarwala, initially had a 50% share in the property. As per Hibba Nama under Muslim Personal Law, she transferred 25% of her share to her son, Mr. Kalimuddin Badnawarwala. The CIT(A) observed that all legal formalities, including registration before the Sub-Registrar, were completed for the 25% share transferred by the appellant and the 25% share transferred by Mr. Kalimuddin. The CIT(A) recalculated the capital gain by considering the sale price at Rs. 37,50,000/- (25% of total consideration) and the purchase price at Rs. 8,28,250/- for the assessee's 25% share. This resulted in a Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. -1,03,206/-, leading to the deletion of the AO's addition. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s finding, as the Revenue did not rebut it with adverse material. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue were rejected, and the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions under Section 80IB(10), finding that land ownership is not a prerequisite for the deduction and that prior tribunal rulings favored the assessee. The cross-objection regarding Section 14A was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions under Section 80IB(10), finding that land ownership is not a prerequisite for the deduction and that prior tribunal rulings favored the assessee. The cross-objection regarding Section 14A was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the land in question was not a capital asset as it did not fall within the specified limits. The Tribunal also restored the assessee's legal grounds regarding satisfaction recording and Section 54B exemption to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition based on cash deposits in creditors' accounts before lending money, while also admitting the creditors earned agricultural income. The Tribunal found the explanation unsatisfactory but deleted 50% of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's grounds related to the applicability of the first proviso to Section 2(15) and the eligibility for deductions under Sections 11 and 12 were to be allowed, following the reasoning in a previous order. The issue of TDS credit was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's grounds related to the applicability of the first proviso to Section 2(15) and the eligibility for deductions under Sections 11 and 12 were to be allowed, following the reasoning in a previous order. The issue of TDS credit was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration was based on suspicion and reports not connected to the assessee's activities. The CIT ought to have based her findings on material related to the assessee itself.

The Tribunal restored the assessee's grounds regarding the legality of penalty proceedings to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding the deletion of penalty on amounts already deleted in quantum proceedings, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration was based on suspicion and reports not connected to the assessee's activities. The CIT ought to have based her findings on material related to the assessee itself.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the claim was made due to a bonafide mistake, especially considering the amendment in law and the allowance of deduction in earlier years. Following the Supreme Court judgment in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not mention or discuss the assessee's contentions and submissions. Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the agricultural land sold by the assessee was not a capital asset as defined under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. The land was situated in a village with a population less than 10,000 and more than 8 km away from the municipal limits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,30,53,039/- as the assessee had made a bonafide mistake in calculating the undisclosed income. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of disallowance of set-off of expenses, finding that the expenditure was directly related to the business activity.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the limit specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed on preliminary grounds.