ITAT Indore Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal found that the submissions of the assessee ought to have been considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after considering all submissions and verifying the claim.

The Tribunal found that the submissions of the assessee ought to have been considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided evidence to explain the queries raised by the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside, and the application was restored for fresh decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were initiated after four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, any additions made during reassessment were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were initiated after four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, any additions made during reassessment were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal addressed several issues across the consolidated appeals. Regarding the addition of Rs. 2,25,000/- for undisclosed investment in land at Khajuri Kalan (AY 2010-11), the Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that the purchase occurred in FY 2007-08 with consideration paid and possession taken, while registration was in FY 2009-10. The Sub-Registrar's value was Rs. 26,24,000/-. The AO computed undisclosed investment at Rs. 14,27,000/-, and the CIT(A) sustained Rs. 2,25,000/-. The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions and perusing records, observed that the actual purchase of land took place in FY 2007-08 when consideration was paid and possession taken. The registration fee of Rs. 2,30,000/- was incurred in FY 2009-10. The Tribunal found that the Ld. AO's assessment was silent regarding information from the seller's husband and an agreement executed on 24.7.2007. The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2,25,000/- was unjustified and directed its deletion. The appeal of Smt. Charu Gupta was partly allowed. For Smt. Alka Gupta (AY 2012-13), Ground No. 1 was dismissed as not pressed. Regarding additions for silver articles (totaling 6.271 Kg valued at Rs. 3,53,238/-), the Tribunal acknowledged the Indian custom of receiving such items on auspicious occasions but found the quantity to be on the higher side. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the revenue authorities to allow a claim of 3 kg of silver articles/utensils as a reasonable quantity and delete the addition of Rs. 1,68,986/- for 3 kg. Grounds 2, 3, and 4 were partly allowed. The appeals of Smt. Charu Gupta, Smt. Laxmi Gupta, and Smt. Alka Gupta were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred for obtaining a lease deed were in the nature of capital expenditure. Therefore, they could not be allowed as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also noted that the expenses were not incurred for the purpose of business.

The Tribunal held that the remuneration should be allowed as per the mutual consent of the partners as per the partnership deed. The electricity expenses were also directed to be allowed as the liability related to the relevant period and was not claimed doubly.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were invalid as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the difference in stock due to running businesses in both proprietary and individual capacities was not acceptable as it was not disclosed in earlier years. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had reconciled the difference in cash with bank statements and cash books.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed deposited the employee's PF contribution before the due date for filing the return. It also accepted the assessee's explanation that the 'interest on TDS' was actually income tax of the deductee, not a disallowable expense.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the difference in stock due to running businesses in both proprietary and individual capacities was not acceptable as it was not disclosed in earlier years. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had reconciled the difference in cash with bank statements and cash books.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) were invalid as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the case was below the prescribed monetary limit. Following CBDT instructions and Supreme Court judgments, the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the amount advanced was part of a business transaction and not a dividend, as it was given for strategic investment with an assured return and profit sharing. The Tribunal emphasized that businessmen should not be dictated on how to conduct their affairs, and the transaction was in the ordinary course of business.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the disputed matters was not more than Rs. 50 lakhs. Following CBDT instructions, the Revenue should not have pursued these appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the disputed matters was not more than Rs. 50 lakhs. Following CBDT instructions, the Revenue should not have pursued these appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the disputed matters was not more than Rs. 50 lakhs. Following CBDT instructions, the Revenue should not have pursued these appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to represent their case. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the assessment was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts for the liquor business and the estimation of income based on a higher net profit rate was not justified. Regarding the sale of agricultural land, the Tribunal found that the issue of whether the gain was taxable or exempt needed fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that payments for operation and maintenance of windmills fall under Section 194C, not Section 194J, as they are composite contractual payments. The issue of TCS short collection was remanded to the AO for verification of payment.

The Tribunal held that payments for operation and maintenance of windmills fall under Section 194C, not Section 194J, as they are composite contractual payments. The issue of TCS short collection was remanded to the AO for verification of payment.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. The assessee's cross-objection regarding legal expenses was allowed after the assessee produced evidence for the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not violated the conditions for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) and deleted the addition for surplus income. For the rent disallowance, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to prior period expenditure and interest income as not pressed. It allowed the ground regarding ESIC/PF contributions, following a Supreme Court judgment. The ground concerning income from Punjab National Bank was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding it to the AO for reconciliation.

The Tribunal held that payments for operation and maintenance of windmills fall under Section 194C, not Section 194J, as they are composite contractual payments. The issue of TCS short collection was remanded to the AO for verification of payment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition related to cash deposited after withdrawals, as the revenue did not prove the withdrawn amounts were utilized elsewhere. The Tribunal also directed deletion of a portion of the addition related to cash in hand, while rejecting the claim of higher sale consideration for agricultural land.