ITAT Indore Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Act will not apply if no exempt income has been earned by the assessee during the year. Therefore, the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not conducted sufficient inquiry before making the additions, and the CIT(A) also did not take necessary steps to satisfy about the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the cash creditors and transactions. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify the charge against the assessee. Therefore, all subsequent penalty proceedings were void ab initio.

The Tribunal noted that a registered valuer's report, not available to the AO, valued the land lower than the stamp duty value. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the issues related to sale consideration, disallowances, and denial of exemption to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's objections regarding the validity of reopening and the location of the land. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking order on these issues.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the assessee had not made any single payment exceeding Rs. 20,000/- to one person in a day. The revenue failed to provide contrary material.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on loose papers or electronic data from a third party without establishing a nexus with the assessee. Since the Revenue failed to prove any connection between the assessee and the CHL group, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was justified.

The Tribunal held that the Central Processing Cell (CPC) has the power to levy fees under Section 234E. For TDS returns processed after June 1, 2015, fees can be levied for the delay occurring from that date onwards, even if the original default period was before it.

The Tribunal held that the Central Processing Cell (CPC) has the power to levy fees under Section 234E. For TDS returns processed on or after June 1, 2015, the levy is valid, even if the TDS quarter falls before this date. However, any fee levied for the period of delay before June 1, 2015, should be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Central Processing Cell (CPC) has the power to levy fees under Section 234E. For TDS returns processed after June 1, 2015, fees can be levied for the delay occurring from that date onwards, even if the original default period was before it.

The Tribunal held that the Central Processing Cell (CPC) has the power to levy fees under Section 234E. For TDS returns processed on or after June 1, 2015, the levy is valid, even if the TDS quarter falls before this date. However, any fee levied for the period of delay before June 1, 2015, should be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the surrendered income was business income and allowed deductions for expenses like depreciation, interest, and remuneration. It noted that Section 115BBE, which disallows deductions against such income, was effective from a later date.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) during the assessment, when facts attracting it were present, made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the PCIT was justified in exercising powers under Section 263.

The Tribunal found that while 100% disallowance by the AO was not justified, the CIT(A)'s 10% disallowance was also insufficient given the discrepancies. The Tribunal directed a 20% disallowance of the total wages.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was incorrect. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in General Finance Company, stating that an omitted provision should be considered as if it never existed, thus the AO was not obligated to refer the case to the TPO.

The Tribunal held that the Central Processing Cell (CPC) has the power to levy fees under Section 234E. For TDS returns processed after June 1, 2015, fees can be levied for the delay occurring from that date onwards, even if the original default period was before it.

The Tribunal held that the Central Processing Cell (CPC) has the power to levy fees under Section 234E. For TDS returns processed on or after June 1, 2015, the levy is valid, even if the TDS quarter falls before this date. However, any fee levied for the period of delay before June 1, 2015, should be deleted.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and cryptic, lacking detailed findings on the AO's grounds. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and cryptic, lacking detailed findings on the AO's grounds. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for the Section 54F claim and remitted the issue to the AO for fresh consideration. For the business income addition, the Tribunal found the AO's estimation lacked basis and directed its deletion.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153C were not validly initiated as the seized documents did not relate to the assessment year under appeal and were not incriminating. The addition for unexplained investment was also deleted as the assessee had demonstrated sufficient source of income.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were without jurisdiction and void ab initio because the Assessing Officer of the searched person failed to record a satisfaction note before handing over the seized documents to the Assessing Officer of the assessee.

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

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

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in revising the assessment order without sufficient grounds. The existence of a valid partnership deed with provisions for remuneration, even if produced later, should have been properly examined by the Principal CIT before deeming the original order erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in revising the assessment order without sufficient grounds. The existence of a valid partnership deed with provisions for remuneration, even if produced later, should have been properly examined by the Principal CIT before deeming the original order erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in revising the assessment order without sufficient grounds. The existence of a valid partnership deed with provisions for remuneration, even if produced later, should have been properly examined by the Principal CIT before deeming the original order erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in revising the assessment order without sufficient grounds. The existence of a valid partnership deed with provisions for remuneration, even if produced later, should have been properly examined by the Principal CIT before deeming the original order erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in revising the assessment order without sufficient grounds. The existence of a valid partnership deed with provisions for remuneration, even if produced later, should have been properly examined by the Principal CIT before deeming the original order erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in revising the assessment order without sufficient grounds. The existence of a valid partnership deed with provisions for remuneration, even if produced later, should have been properly examined by the Principal CIT before deeming the original order erroneous.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee. The sole issue was the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments made for land purchases. The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the transactions and the identity of the parties were not disputed. While acknowledging that the land purchased formed part of the stock-in-trade, thereby invoking Section 40A(3), the Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that the cash payment was made on the insistence of the sellers and that such practices were prevalent. The Tribunal also took note of an undertaking given by the assessee's counsel that the impugned cash amount would not be claimed as expenditure in subsequent years against revenue or gross turnover. Respectfully following the decisions of co-ordinate benches and other relied-upon judgments, and in view of the undertaking, the Tribunal set aside the findings of the CIT(A) and deleted the disallowances made under Section 40A(3). The disallowance of Rs. 4,26,060 for AY 2012-13 and Rs. 18,50,000 for AY 2013-14 were deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee. The sole issue was the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments made for land purchases. The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the transactions and the identity of the parties were not disputed. While acknowledging that the land purchased formed part of the stock-in-trade, thereby invoking Section 40A(3), the Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that the cash payment was made on the insistence of the sellers and that such practices were prevalent. The Tribunal also took note of an undertaking given by the assessee's counsel that the impugned cash amount would not be claimed as expenditure in subsequent years against revenue or gross turnover. Respectfully following the decisions of co-ordinate benches and other relied-upon judgments, and in view of the undertaking, the Tribunal set aside the findings of the CIT(A) and deleted the disallowances made under Section 40A(3). The disallowance of Rs. 4,26,060 for AY 2012-13 and Rs. 18,50,000 for AY 2013-14 were deleted.

The Tribunal found that 30% of gross receipts would be a fair estimate for expenses incurred by the assessee to earn commission income. Therefore, the revenue authorities were directed to allow expenses at 30% of gross receipts.

The Tribunal set aside the issue of unsecured loans to the AO for fresh verification. The AO was directed to inquire from creditors and delete the addition if confirmed, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs, as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed on preliminary grounds without going into the merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of commission expenses, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient justification and evidence for the payments. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of a portion of other expenses, noting that the assessee had produced bills and vouchers and the books of account were audited.

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

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

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for Rs. 2,50,000/- from sale of another property, Rs. 88,000/- for advance rent, and Rs. 24,100/- from ATM withdrawal and miscellaneous cash. However, it disallowed Rs. 1,46,000/- claimed from loan from wife and bank withdrawals after the property registration date.

The Tribunal held that penalty for the first summons was not leviable as the assessee provided a reasonable cause for non-compliance. However, for the second summons, no reasonable cause was established, and the penalty was confirmed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) passed an order without considering the merits of the case.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.