ITAT Indore Judgments — August 2020

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit set by the CBDT. The appeal was dismissed on preliminary grounds without considering the merits.

The ITAT held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit set by the CBDT circulars. The circulars mandate that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is below a certain threshold.

The Tribunal held that the collection, transportation, and disposal of waste services do not fall under the definition of technical services as per Section 194J. Therefore, the assessee rightly deducted TDS under Section 194C.

The Tribunal held that interest on delayed entry tax payment is a deductible expenditure under Section 37(1) as it is laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Similarly, charges for delayed supply of books, being a contractual obligation and not a penalty, are also deductible.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAA could not be sustained. This was due to a defective show cause notice and the Assessing Officer's failure to confront the assessee to substantiate the manner of earning the additional income.

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

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAA could not be sustained. This was due to a defective show cause notice and the Assessing Officer's failure to confront the assessee to substantiate the manner of earning the additional income.

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was caused by the assessee pursuing alternative remedies, constituting a reasonable cause. The CIT(A) had not decided the case on merits.

The Tribunal, following its own earlier decisions and the Rajasthan High Court's ruling in Chambal Fertilizers, held that education cess is an allowable expenditure and not hit by Section 40(a)(ii). Therefore, the claim for education cess was allowed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessees cooperated in the assessment proceedings by complying with notices on subsequent dates and the assessments were not ex-parte, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) was not justified. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning for confirming the addition, based solely on why the assessee did not deposit savings earlier, was insufficient. The Tribunal found it plausible that the assessee could have kept cash, and directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that since the assessees cooperated in the assessment proceedings by complying with notices on subsequent dates and the assessments were not ex-parte, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) was not justified. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessees cooperated in the assessment proceedings by complying with notices on subsequent dates and the assessments were not ex-parte, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) was not justified. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessees cooperated in the assessment proceedings by complying with notices on subsequent dates and the assessments were not ex-parte, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) was not justified. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessees cooperated in the assessment proceedings by complying with notices on subsequent dates and the assessments were not ex-parte, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) was not justified. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessees cooperated in the assessment proceedings by complying with notices on subsequent dates and the assessments were not ex-parte, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) was not justified. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessees cooperated in the assessment proceedings by complying with notices on subsequent dates and the assessments were not ex-parte, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) was not justified. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessees cooperated in the assessment proceedings by complying with notices on subsequent dates and the assessments were not ex-parte, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) was not justified. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessees cooperated in the assessment proceedings by complying with notices on subsequent dates and the assessments were not ex-parte, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) was not justified. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessees cooperated in the assessment proceedings by complying with notices on subsequent dates and the assessments were not ex-parte, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) was not justified. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessees cooperated in the assessment proceedings by complying with notices on subsequent dates and the assessments were not ex-parte, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) was not justified. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessees cooperated in the assessment proceedings by complying with notices on subsequent dates and the assessments were not ex-parte, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) was not justified. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessees cooperated in the assessment proceedings by complying with notices on subsequent dates and the assessments were not ex-parte, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) was not justified. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessees cooperated in the assessment proceedings by complying with notices on subsequent dates and the assessments were not ex-parte, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) was not justified. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessees cooperated in the assessment proceedings by complying with notices on subsequent dates and the assessments were not ex-parte, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) was not justified. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the peak credit addition as the assessee had sufficient cash and stock to cover the bank balance. The Tribunal also found that the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts and estimating profit at a higher rate.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAB cannot be sustained. The Assessing Officer's observation that the income would not have been offered without the search was considered guesswork without substantiating material evidence.

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

The assessee expressed no interest in pursuing the current appeals as the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The departmental representative did not object to the withdrawal.

The assessee expressed no interest in pursuing the current appeals as the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The departmental representative did not object to the withdrawal.

The assessee expressed no interest in pursuing the current appeals as the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The departmental representative did not object to the withdrawal.

The assessee expressed no interest in pursuing the current appeals as the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The departmental representative did not object to the withdrawal.

The assessee expressed no interest in pursuing the current appeals as the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The departmental representative did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and paid the taxes. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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