ITAT Indore Judgments — January 2020

The Tribunal held that the loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- was received by the assessee in the financial year 2011-12, as evidenced by bank statements. Therefore, no addition could be made for the assessment year 2014-15 as the amount was not received in that year.

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

The Tribunal held that a portion of the interest income earned on fixed deposits with banks is eligible for deduction. Specifically, the interest earned on the 25% of the society's funds that are statutorily required to be kept as fixed deposits under the Madhya Pradesh Society Act is considered part of the business activity and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction on this portion of interest income. Regarding the remaining interest income from bank deposits, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that corresponding expenses incurred for earning this interest should be allowed. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute the disallowance after allowing deduction of these expenses. The grounds raised in the appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance was not sustainable as it was based solely on the past history of the assessee and not on the fair market value of the services rendered by the directors. The AO failed to provide any material suggesting a lower fair market value for such remuneration.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification. The AO is directed to examine the actual amount of provision for bad and doubtful debts allowed as deduction and bad debts recovered in earlier years.

The Tribunal held that the agents facilitating the transactions were independent general commission agents and not working mainly or wholly for the non-residents. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for TDS under Section 195.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It held that expenses incurred for the transportation business should be allowed, albeit with an estimated profit margin. The additions for gifts from the mother-in-law and father were deleted after considering documentary evidence and the donors' circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard. 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 being heard. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO relied on material gathered behind the assessee's back without confronting the assessee or providing an opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that carrying out actual charitable activity cannot be a pre-condition for granting registration under Section 12AA of the Act. The assessee needs to fulfill the procedural requirements as provided in Rule 17A and the guidelines in Form No. 10A/10G. If the CIT(E) finds that the application has been properly made and the objects of the trust are charitable in nature as per the Act, registration should not be denied. The Tribunal respectfully followed the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of D.P.R. Charitable Trust and directed the Ld. CIT(E) to grant registration under Section 12AA of the Act to the assessee. Regarding the approval under Section 80G(5)(vi), the issue was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for reconsideration after examining the facts and provisions of law. The grounds in ITA No. 470/Ind/2018 were allowed, and the grounds in ITA No. 471/Ind/2018 were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's submissions that separate books of accounts were maintained and that expenditure related to exempt income was not claimed in the P&L account. The Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's contention that dividend income was incidental to its business. Since these submissions were not decided by the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored these grounds to the file of the CIT(A) for decision after considering the assessee's submissions and verifying the maintenance of separate accounts. The Tribunal also observed that the disallowance under Section 14A has to be computed as per subsection (1) of Section 14A, and only that part of expenditure incurred in relation to income that forms part of the total income should be allowed. The Tribunal recalculated the proportional disallowable expenditure based on the re-casted trading and P&L accounts, arriving at Rs. 40,46,763, and confirmed this addition. However, it also noted that the appellant would get relief of Rs. 20,38,610, leading to the appeal being partly allowed on this ground. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the remaining grounds for statistical purposes, remanding them to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AA. The matter was remanded back to the CIT for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AA. The matter was remanded back to the CIT for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that carrying out actual charitable activity cannot be a pre-condition for granting registration under Section 12AA of the Act. The assessee needs to fulfill the procedural requirements as provided in Rule 17A and the guidelines in Form No. 10A/10G. If the CIT(E) finds that the application has been properly made and the objects of the trust are charitable in nature as per the Act, registration should not be denied. The Tribunal respectfully followed the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of D.P.R. Charitable Trust and directed the Ld. CIT(E) to grant registration under Section 12AA of the Act to the assessee. Regarding the approval under Section 80G(5)(vi), the issue was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for reconsideration after examining the facts and provisions of law. The grounds in ITA No. 470/Ind/2018 were allowed, and the grounds in ITA No. 471/Ind/2018 were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AA. The matter was remanded back to the CIT for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the genuineness and business expediency of advances, as well as the availability of interest-free funds, need to be verified in the year the advance was given. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication on both issues.

The Tribunal acknowledged that there were deposits and withdrawals in the bank account. It directed the AO to verify the peak credit working submitted by the assessee and restrict the addition to the extent of the peak credit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had given the AO sufficient opportunity to rebut the evidences filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s finding.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Commissioner passed a one-sided order without examining the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner was set aside.

The Tribunal held that while Section 44AD was not directly applicable due to the turnover exceeding the limit, an 8% net profit rate on the total turnover would be justified and fair, given the non-maintenance of books of accounts. The addition was sustained to the extent of applying an 8% net profit rate.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had accepted similar agricultural income claims for a prior assessment year. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the prior year's findings.

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 required to pursue the appeal. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the additional turnover found from Form 26AS, which was not part of the regularly maintained books of account, cannot be considered for the purpose of Section 44AB. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was deleted.

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

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside, and the grounds were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the disallowance was made on an ad-hoc basis without corroborative material. While some expenses like advertisement and travelling appeared excessive, a complete disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee has failed to establish the genuineness of the expenses claimed. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was upheld.

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

The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged their onus by providing requisite evidence for the unsecured loans. The Revenue authorities failed to consider this evidence.

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

The Tribunal found that considering the total family withdrawals, previous year's assessments, and the assessee's son's contributions, there were sufficient funds to meet the credit card payments. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) passed a non-speaking 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) did not pass a reasoned order on merits, which is not just. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the lower appellate authority passed a one-sided order without proper consideration of the merits.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own order for the preceding assessment year, where a similar addition was deleted. The Tribunal found that the difference between the assessee's valuation and the DVO's report was only 12%, and no material was brought by the revenue to suggest a higher investment.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the disputed issues was less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Following CBDT instructions and Supreme Court judgments, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the disputed issues was less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Following CBDT instructions and Supreme Court judgments, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation for the credits in the bank account, the interest on FDRs related to previous years, and the investment in shares belonged to the wife. Additions based on presumption or without corroborative evidence were unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars. Following Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits.

The assessee expressed willingness to contest the reassessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 through a regular appeal filed before the CIT(A). The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided evidence of selling ancestral property and receiving a share of Rs. 3,49,600/-, from which the Rs. 1,90,000/- was given as an advance. Therefore, the source of the loan was explained.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and the order was not passed on merits.