ITAT Indore Judgments — May 2019

The Tribunal held that the jottings on the seized diary were rough notes and did not represent actual transactions. It was clarified that the alleged land purchases did not materialize and related payments were cancelled, thus the addition made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, deleting additions related to unexplained cash recovered from a locker as the source was explained. However, additions based on the assessee's statement regarding house investment were sustained due to a direct correlation with the disclosure.

The Tribunal held that investment in agricultural land made in the name of the assessee's son is eligible for deduction under Section 54B, following various High Court judgments. It also held that investment made within the time prescribed under Section 139(4) is valid.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making the addition solely on the basis of sellers' statements, disregarding substantial documentary evidence presented by the assessee. The addition was made in the hands of the individual assessee, whereas the property was registered in the name of the company.

The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 54EC deduction to the AO for verification of the exact date of application for the bond. It also partly allowed the appeal regarding Section 50C by allowing certain expenses related to property transfer while disallowing others.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income is earned. It also held that the write-off of sundry balances, representing advances given for business purposes and found irrecoverable, is allowable as a business expenditure under Section 37.

The Tribunal held that the capital contributions from partner Mr. Manoj Jain were sufficiently explained and genuine, thus deleting the additions made under Section 68. However, for the capital contribution from Mr. Manish Rawatiya, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for further adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to prove creditworthiness.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. This was to be done in light of the earlier ITAT order on identical issues and after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which applies retrospectively.

The Tribunal considered the application for withdrawal of the appeal. As the respondent did not raise any objection, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts for suppressed sales was not justified as quantitative details were maintained and the net profit rate was consistent. However, a partial addition for undervaluation of closing stock was sustained due to lack of supporting evidence for claimed breakage.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the share applicants, especially in light of the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT V/s NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiry regarding the Section 10A claim, and the Pr. CIT's view was merely a change of opinion, not sufficient to invoke Section 263. However, the Pr. CIT's direction to re-examine book profit calculation and additional depreciation was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts for suppressed sales was not justified as quantitative details were maintained and the net profit rate was consistent. However, a partial addition for undervaluation of closing stock was sustained due to lack of supporting evidence for claimed breakage.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 11,10,000/- for AY 2000-01 was not sustainable as the diary was a 'dumb document' found from an employee and not linked to the assessee. For AY 2001-02 and 2002-03, the Tribunal applied presumptive taxation and estimated profits, partly allowing the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 11,10,000/- for AY 2000-01 was not sustainable as the diary was a 'dumb document' found from an employee and not linked to the assessee. For AY 2001-02 and 2002-03, the Tribunal applied presumptive taxation and estimated profits, partly allowing the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the CIT(A) who had deleted the addition. The Tribunal found that the issue was squarely covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 11,10,000/- for AY 2000-01 was not sustainable as the diary was a 'dumb document' found from an employee and not linked to the assessee. For AY 2001-02 and 2002-03, the Tribunal applied presumptive taxation and estimated profits, partly allowing the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were deleted by a previous ITAT order, the penalty itself would not survive. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) confirming the deletion of the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding the Section 54B deduction, remanding the issue to the CIT(A) to decide afresh whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction for the entire sale proceeds invested jointly with his brothers.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the deletion of the addition on gross profit and the restriction of the addition on salary expenses. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition on travelling expenses.

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

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the disputed issue was less than Rs. 20 lakhs. Following CBDT instructions and Supreme Court judgments, the Revenue was not expected to pursue such appeals.

The Tribunal held that the AO had inquired about these expenses, so the CIT(A) was within its jurisdiction to examine them. The disallowance of commission and interest was sustained, but the disallowance of administrative expenses was deleted.

The CIT(A) held that even if the excess depreciation claim was disallowed, the assessee's income would still be Nil because its application of funds for charitable purposes exceeded 85% of its total receipts. The Tribunal upheld this decision.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated profits was not justified as no concealment or inaccurate particulars were proven. However, penalty for an incorrect claim under Section 54B was upheld as the assessee failed to demonstrate bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated profits was not justified as no concealment or inaccurate particulars were proven. However, penalty for an incorrect claim under Section 54B was upheld as the assessee failed to demonstrate bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated profits was not justified as no concealment or inaccurate particulars were proven. However, penalty for an incorrect claim under Section 54B was upheld as the assessee failed to demonstrate bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated profits was not justified as no concealment or inaccurate particulars were proven. However, penalty for an incorrect claim under Section 54B was upheld as the assessee failed to demonstrate bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated profits was not justified as no concealment or inaccurate particulars were proven. However, penalty for an incorrect claim under Section 54B was upheld as the assessee failed to demonstrate bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A). Since the original addition on which the penalty was based had been deleted, the penalty was no longer sustainable.

The Tribunal held that penalty on estimated profits was not justified as no concealment or inaccurate particulars were proven. However, penalty for an incorrect claim under Section 54B was upheld as the assessee failed to demonstrate bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of interest expenses, finding sufficient interest-free funds. Regarding commission expenses, the Tribunal deleted a portion of the disallowance, finding that genuineness was not doubted for certain parties, but sustained a portion of the disallowance where the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations.

The Tribunal held that the payment made was not a penalty for an offence prohibited by law, but rather a normal business expenditure incurred due to a breach of a contractual agreement. Therefore, the deletion of the disallowance by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have examined whether the assessee actually earned freight charges for transportation services. Simply transporting excavated stones to customers does not automatically imply a business of transportation or running vehicles on hire.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable due to the outstanding tax on the returned income. No evidence was presented to show the tax had been paid.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable due to the outstanding tax on the returned income. No evidence was presented to show the tax had been paid.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable due to the outstanding tax on the returned income. No evidence was presented to show the tax had been paid.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a hearing, which is not justifiable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a hearing, which is not justifiable.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable due to the outstanding tax on the returned income. No evidence was presented to show the tax had been paid.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable due to the outstanding tax on the returned income. No evidence was presented to show the tax had been paid.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a hearing, which is not justifiable.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable due to the outstanding tax on the returned income. No evidence was presented to show the tax had been paid.