ITAT Indore Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide specific instances of irregularities in the bills and vouchers. Since the books were audited and the expenses were for business purposes, the ad-hoc disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the purchase bill for Rs. 12,23,675/- was genuine, supported by documentary evidence like the supplier's ledger and invoices. The delay in entering the purchase in the assessee's books was considered a bona fide oversight.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely because the AO did not conduct further inquiries or because two views were possible. The PCIT must demonstrate that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, which was not done in this case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and no merits were adjudicated. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that when the quantum issue is debatable and admitted as a substantial question of law by the High Court, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and no merits were adjudicated. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect in each assessment year was below the prescribed monetary limits. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed.

The Tribunal held that when the quantum issue is debatable and admitted as a substantial question of law by the High Court, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit set by the CBDT. Therefore, the Revenue was not required to pursue the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect in each assessment year was below the prescribed monetary limits. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect in each assessment year was below the prescribed monetary limits. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect in each assessment year was below the prescribed monetary limits. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and no merits were adjudicated. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and no merits were adjudicated. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and no merits were adjudicated. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and no merits were adjudicated. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and no merits were adjudicated. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and no merits were adjudicated. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity to be heard.

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

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

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

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to reject the books of accounts and did not conduct necessary inquiries to justify the estimation of gross profit. Similarly, the disallowance of commission was based on conjectures and surmises without adverse material. Therefore, both additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of gratuity and leave encashment provisions as the payments were actually made. The Tribunal also affirmed the CIT(A)'s partial relief on non-deduction of tax at source.

The Tribunal held that mere making of a claim, even if not sustainable in law, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income, especially when all material facts were disclosed. The disallowances were based on the AO's view of the disclosed P&L and balance sheet, not on unearthing new facts.

The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred under CSR schemes is allowable. The explanation inserted in Section 37 of the Act is operative from 1.4.2015 and not applicable to the assessment year 2013-14. Following previous coordinate bench decisions, the addition was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that mere making of a claim, even if not sustainable in law, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income, especially when all material facts were disclosed. The disallowances were based on the AO's view of the disclosed P&L and balance sheet, not on unearthing new facts.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the revision order passed by the Principal CIT under Section 263 was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the issues related to the approval of the application under Section 80G needed to be set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including a fresh valuation report and a diversion order, deeming them relevant to the core issue. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the case afresh in light of this evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT was not justified in revising the assessment order. The assessee had correctly accounted for depreciation, and the EPF contributions were made within the permissible period, causing no prejudice to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption)'s view that Section 12AA registration obviates the need for Section 10(23C)(vi) approval is incorrect. The Tribunal relied on CBDT Circular No. 14 of 2015, which clarifies that Section 10(23C)(vi) does not mandate Section 12AA registration as a pre-condition, and that both provisions operate independently. It also cited the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Franciscan Clarist Society, emphasizing that exemption cannot be denied solely based on bye-laws without considering actual activities. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's objects encompass both charitable and educational purposes, and separate registration under Section 10(23C)(vi) is permissible. The CIT(Exemption) should have examined the assessee's activities to determine if they met the conditions for Section 10(23C)(vi) approval, rather than denying it due to existing Section 12AA registration. Consequently, the issue of approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) was set aside to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh examination after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the gain from the sale of the land should be taxed as long-term capital gain in Assessment Year 2010-11, as the holding period was less than 36 months and possession was given on March 31, 2010. However, the Tribunal noted that the valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority might be disputed. Therefore, the issue of valuation was set aside to the AO for reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer under Section 50C(2) of the Act, to determine the correct value for computing the capital gain. The Tribunal allowed the claim for expenses, including stamp duty, registration charges (Rs. 1,72,67,070/-), and brokerage (Rs. 28 lakhs), to be deducted in the computation of long-term capital gain for AY 2010-11, as these expenses related to the transaction and their quantum was ascertainable as of March 31, 2010, irrespective of the payment date. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee is eligible for credit of tax paid on the net profit of Rs. 8,75,86,752/- declared in AY 2011-12 against the tax liability arising in AY 2010-11, as the same transaction cannot be taxed twice. The AO was directed to give the deduction and credit accordingly. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs, making the appeal not maintainable. Following CBDT circulars and Supreme Court judgments, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable in view of the CBDT circulars which stipulated monetary limits for filing appeals. Following a coordinate bench decision, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT lacked jurisdiction to invoke Section 263 when the same issue was pending before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide specific findings to deny the exemption under Section 10(23C) of the Act, despite acknowledging the assessee's registration. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, especially since the facts were similar to a previous year's appeal which was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is only eligible for statutory interest as provided under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act and not for interest on interest. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals clarified that only statutory interest can be claimed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is only eligible for statutory interest as provided under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act and not for interest on interest. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals clarified that only statutory interest can be claimed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is only eligible for statutory interest as provided under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act and not for interest on interest. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals clarified that only statutory interest can be claimed.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the case was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable and was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the disputed issue was below Rs. 50 lakhs. Following CBDT instructions and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A, prior to its amendment effective June 1, 2015, did not contain an enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of such fees for statements processed before this amendment was not justified.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A, prior to its amendment effective June 1, 2015, did not contain an enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of such fees for statements processed before this amendment was not justified.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A, prior to its amendment effective June 1, 2015, did not contain an enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of such fees for statements processed before this amendment was not justified.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A, prior to its amendment effective June 1, 2015, did not contain an enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of such fees for statements processed before this amendment was not justified.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A, prior to its amendment effective June 1, 2015, did not contain an enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of such fees for statements processed before this amendment was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) passed an order without providing a hearing, which is not justifiable. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.