ITAT Indore Judgments — June 2019

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim for set-off of AMT tax credit, following the provisions of Section 115JD. The revenue's appeal against this decision was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it failed to specify whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee was entitled to set off the AMT credit against regular tax liability as per Section 115JD of the Income Tax Act. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the assessee's claim for set-off of AMT tax credit. The Tribunal found the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim based on the provisions of Section 115JD of the Act.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the amounts were deposited before the due date of filing the return. This decision was supported by Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on estimated income, especially when the addition was scaled down by the Tribunal. Regarding Section 271A, the Tribunal found that the assessee had maintained sufficient details and filed financial statements, making the penalty unjustified.

The Tribunal held that merely filing an appeal is insufficient; it requires effective persuasion. Since the assessee failed to appear or arrange for representation, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal found that the tax effect was less than Rs. 20 lakhs, which is the limit prescribed by CBDT instructions for filing appeals. Following the instructions and precedents, the Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have pursued this appeal.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear for the hearing and prosecute the appeal indicates a lack of interest. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

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

The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision, acknowledged a reasonable cause for the delay due to technical issues in portal integration. Therefore, the penalty was sustained at Rs. 9,700, and the remaining amount was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere with the deletion of the foreign exchange fluctuation loss. The assessee's cross-objection challenging the reopening of assessment was dismissed as not pressed, and the ground regarding low tax effect was dismissed due to an exception for revenue audit objections.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was done beyond four years without fulfilling the conditions for extended period. The Tribunal further held that the amortization of loss on investment in securities is allowable as business expenditure, following a Gujarat High Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was done beyond four years without fulfilling the conditions for extended period. The Tribunal further held that the amortization of loss on investment in securities is allowable as business expenditure, following a Gujarat High Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Since the assessee failed to prosecute the appeal, it was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was invalid as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee was legally entitled to file a revised return before the completion of assessment, making the penalty unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was bound by the Tribunal's prior directions to only verify the genuineness of specific creditors. Therefore, the AO's order was not erroneous, and the Pr. CIT exceeded jurisdiction by invoking Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the present case was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT instructions. Therefore, the Revenue was not required to pursue the appeal. The appeal was dismissed on preliminary grounds without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Citing various judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without considering the merits. 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 an order without a reasoned decision on merits, which is not in accordance with justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without considering the merits. 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) did not pass the order on merits, which is not justifiable. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

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

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

The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) did not pass the order on merits, which is not justifiable. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) had not passed a reasoned order. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

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

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without considering the merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) did not pass orders on merits. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) after subsequent compliance, and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified and liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) after subsequent compliance, and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified and liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) after subsequent compliance, and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified and liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) after subsequent compliance, and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified and liable to be deleted.

The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective 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 condoned the delay of 6 days in filing the appeal and admitted it for hearing. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had passed a one-sided order without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

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

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) after subsequent compliance, and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was unjustified and liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without properly 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) did not pass the order on merits, which is not justifiable. 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 the order without considering the merits, which is not justifiable. 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 considering the merits of the case.