ITAT Indore Judgments — August 2019

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in estimating the property value and should have relied on stamp valuation rates. For the unexplained investment, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to rebut evidence gathered from third parties.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the disputed matter was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs. Following CBDT instructions and Supreme Court judgments, the Revenue should not have pressed the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on preliminary grounds without going into the merits.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the case was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the disputed matter was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the Revenue was not expected to pursue the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the threshold limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the Revenue was not required to pursue the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the Revenue was not expected to pursue these appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2008-09 for statistical purposes regarding the bad debts claim. For AY 2012-13, the issue of warranty expenses was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2008-09 for statistical purposes regarding the bad debts claim. For AY 2012-13, the issue of warranty expenses was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Citing various judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal decided that the appeal cannot be kept pending indefinitely and should be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the Revenue was not expected to pursue these appeals.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the Revenue was not expected to pursue these appeals.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the Revenue was not expected to pursue these appeals.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 132(4) without correlating it with any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal also noted that the search in the assessee's case had concluded before the statement was made.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal concerning the penalty under Section 271D, as the assessee did not challenge the fact of taking the loan. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning the penalty under Section 271E, finding no evidence that the loan repayment was made in cash.

The ITAT set aside both the disallowance of interest and the expenditure under Rule 8D to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the CIT(A) to decide these issues along with the pending appeal for AY 2010-11 regarding the Section 68 addition related to the same unsecured loans.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal concerning the penalty under Section 271D, as the assessee did not challenge the fact of taking the loan. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning the penalty under Section 271E, finding no evidence that the loan repayment was made in cash.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, as no exempt income was earned. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on depreciation, disallowing it as the Managing Director did not offer any perquisite income for the assets used at his residence.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unexplained investment in purchase of plots was not justified without proper evidence. For undisclosed receipts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification, with a direction to confirm the addition if the source denied the transaction.

The Tribunal held that for orders processed before June 1, 2015, no Section 234E fee was leviable. However, for orders processed on or after June 1, 2015, the fee is leviable, with a direction to delete fees for delays prior to June 1, 2015, and confirm for the period thereafter.

The Tribunal held that for orders processed before June 1, 2015, no Section 234E fee was leviable. However, for orders processed on or after June 1, 2015, the fee is leviable, with a direction to delete fees for delays prior to June 1, 2015, and confirm for the period thereafter.

The Tribunal held that for orders processed before June 1, 2015, no Section 234E fee was leviable. However, for orders processed on or after June 1, 2015, the fee is leviable, with a direction to delete fees for delays prior to June 1, 2015, and confirm for the period thereafter.

The Tribunal held that for orders processed before June 1, 2015, no Section 234E fee was leviable. However, for orders processed on or after June 1, 2015, the fee is leviable, with a direction to delete fees for delays prior to June 1, 2015, and confirm for the period thereafter.

The Tribunal held that for orders processed before June 1, 2015, no Section 234E fee was leviable. However, for orders processed on or after June 1, 2015, the fee is leviable, with a direction to delete fees for delays prior to June 1, 2015, and confirm for the period thereafter.

The Tribunal held that for orders processed before June 1, 2015, no Section 234E fee was leviable. However, for orders processed on or after June 1, 2015, the fee is leviable, with a direction to delete fees for delays prior to June 1, 2015, and confirm for the period thereafter.

The Tribunal held that for orders processed before June 1, 2015, no Section 234E fee was leviable. However, for orders processed on or after June 1, 2015, the fee is leviable, with a direction to delete fees for delays prior to June 1, 2015, and confirm for the period thereafter.

The Tribunal held that for orders processed before June 1, 2015, no Section 234E fee was leviable. However, for orders processed on or after June 1, 2015, the fee is leviable, with a direction to delete fees for delays prior to June 1, 2015, and confirm for the period thereafter.

The Tribunal held that for orders processed before June 1, 2015, no Section 234E fee was leviable. However, for orders processed on or after June 1, 2015, the fee is leviable, with a direction to delete fees for delays prior to June 1, 2015, and confirm for the period thereafter.

The Tribunal held that for orders processed before June 1, 2015, no Section 234E fee was leviable. However, for orders processed on or after June 1, 2015, the fee is leviable, with a direction to delete fees for delays prior to June 1, 2015, and confirm for the period thereafter.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the AO had tangible material (AIR information) and the assessee had filed the return with the wrong jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal set aside the AO's order on the valuation of the property and computation of indexed cost of acquisition for fresh adjudication.