ITAT Indore Judgments — July 2020

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 Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as no objection was raised by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be made solely based on a disclosure made before the Settlement Commission, especially when no incriminating material was found during a search. The Tribunal followed a previous decision stating that such disclosures are confidential and cannot be used against the assessee without corroboration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal and it cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing, which is not in accordance with natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard 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 the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without examining the merits of the case. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) are set aside and the appeals are remanded back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without examining the merits of the case. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A of the Act effective from June 1, 2015, the revenue authorities did not have the power to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which came into effect from June 1, 2015, the revenue authorities did not have the power to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of late fees was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, the revenue authorities did not have the power to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of late fees in such cases was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which came into effect from June 1, 2015, the revenue authorities did not have the power to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of late fees was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A of the Act effective from June 1, 2015, the revenue authorities did not have the power to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees was unjustified.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing, which is against natural justice. 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 hearing, which is against natural justice. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A of the Act effective from June 1, 2015, the revenue authorities did not have the power to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A of the Act effective from June 1, 2015, the revenue authorities did not have the power to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A of the Act effective from June 1, 2015, the revenue authorities did not have the power to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A of the Act effective from June 1, 2015, the revenue authorities did not have the power to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that before the amendment to Section 200A of the Act effective from June 1, 2015, the revenue authorities did not have the power to levy late fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the levy of such fees was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the entire addition. It directed the deletion of Rs. 6,40,000/- as the source was explained by withdrawal from a relative's account and affidavits. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of the remaining Rs. 4,01,400/-, finding that the CIT(A) had brushed aside the explanation of advance receipt based on suspicion.

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