ITAT Indore Judgments — May 2020

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order on merits and thus violated principles of natural justice. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to commercial advances and unsecured loans, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation and banking evidence. However, for certain expenses, the Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal by confirming a reduced disallowance.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal as the revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal as the revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals is applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision and held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals is applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals is applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals is applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) considering the assessees' lack of education and reliance on tax advisors. The matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) considering the assessees' lack of education and reliance on tax advisors. The matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on rent paid to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, as its income was exempt. Regarding payments to co-owners, the Tribunal found that TDS was correctly deducted on individual shares exceeding the threshold, thus setting aside the findings of short deduction.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to accept all evidence, consider the possibility of double additions and telescoping benefits, and provide a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal should be allowed. Regarding the denial of registration under Section 12AA, the Tribunal found that the trust deed's objects were both religious and charitable. While the trust deed referred to the Jain community and the maintenance of a Jain temple, it also included broader charitable objects like providing medical relief to humans, birds, and animals, and offering a place for meditation. The Tribunal noted that the Municipal Council of Ganj Basoda had issued a certificate identifying the temple's land and that the trust was paying property tax for it. The genuineness of these documents was not doubted by the CIT(E). The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in Shri Jain Shwetamber Murtipujak Sangh V/s CIT (ITA No.1353/PN/2014), which dealt with similar facts and issues. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(E) erred in denying registration, as the trust was working for both religious and charitable purposes, and the property was being maintained and used for such purposes by the assessee trust under a certificate from the Municipal Council. The Tribunal allowed grounds 1 to 4 and directed the CIT(E) to grant the certificate of registration under Section 12AA of the Act. Ground No. 5 was general and required no adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to accept all evidence, consider the possibility of double additions and telescoping benefits, and provide a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that an order passed against a deceased person is a nullity in the eyes of law and quashed the impugned order. However, it clarified that the Pr. CIT could rectify the mistake in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that if the profit were reduced by the notional salary, the business income would be recomputed, and consequently, the Section 80IB(11A) deduction would also be recomputed. The Tribunal found that the net effect of this recomputation would be nil, and therefore directed the deletion of the addition.