ITAT Indore Judgments — October 2020

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was correct in directing the AO to examine the admissibility of agricultural income. However, the direction for a de novo assessment was modified to restrict the AO's examination solely to the agricultural income issue.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel did not wish to press the appeal. The departmental representative did not object to this submission.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's written submissions, thus denying a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's written submissions, thus denying a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the pilot training services provided by the non-resident did not make technical knowledge, skill, or know-how available to the assessee. Therefore, the payments were not in the nature of fees for technical services, and TDS was not required.

The Tribunal held that the pilot training services provided by the non-resident did not make technical knowledge, skill, or know-how available to the assessee. Therefore, the payments were not in the nature of fees for technical services, and TDS was not required.

The Tribunal held that the interest income arose from the sale consideration of jointly held land. Therefore, the interest income ought to have been apportioned among the co-owners. The issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification and apportionment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an individual, was not required to deduct TDS on interest paid as their turnover for the preceding financial year was below the threshold specified in Section 44AB. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

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

The Tribunal held that the appeal cannot be kept pending indefinitely if the assessee is not interested in pursuing it. The Tribunal relied on various judicial pronouncements supporting the dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities could be considered public utility and that the CIT(Exemption) was not justified in rejecting the registration solely on the basis of being a service provider. The Tribunal directed the CIT(Exemption) to grant registration under Section 12AA.

The Tribunal held that the unsecured loans and interest paid thereon from M/s Aereo Dealcom Pvt Ltd and M/s Chamak Trexim Pvt. Ltd. were explained. The creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions were substantiated.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had acted bonafidely and had a reasonable cause for deducting tax at a lower rate initially. The subsequent deposit of the correct tax amount with interest demonstrated their intention to comply with the law. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271C was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the unsecured loans and interest paid thereon from M/s Aereo Dealcom Pvt Ltd and M/s Chamak Trexim Pvt. Ltd. were explained. The creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions were substantiated.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had acted bonafidely and had a reasonable cause for deducting tax at a lower rate initially. The subsequent deposit of the correct tax amount with interest demonstrated their intention to comply with the law. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271C was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the unsecured loans and interest paid thereon from M/s Aereo Dealcom Pvt Ltd and M/s Chamak Trexim Pvt. Ltd. were explained. The creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the transactions were substantiated.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessees had acted bonafidely and had a reasonable cause for deducting tax at a lower rate initially. The subsequent deposit of the correct tax amount with interest demonstrated their intention to comply with the law. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271C was deleted.

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

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 found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) also failed to pass a reasoned order on merits, which is not in accordance with justice.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(c) empowering the levy of fees under Section 234E is prospective. Therefore, fees cannot be levied for processing completed before June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(c) empowering the levy of fees under Section 234E is prospective. Therefore, fees cannot be levied for processing completed before June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal held that additions on account of unexplained investment/peak balance of undisclosed bank accounts were not justified as the available cash and stock in hand in the regular books exceeded the peak balance. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions on account of unexplained investment/peak balance of undisclosed bank accounts were not justified as the available cash and stock in hand in the regular books exceeded the peak balance. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

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

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(c) empowering the levy of fees under Section 234E is prospective. Therefore, fees cannot be levied for processing completed before June 1, 2015.

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 held that the AO was justified in making additions for unrecorded expenses. Regarding jewellery, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider the jewellery purchased by the assessee's brother and to give the benefit of CBDT circular in respect of the mother's jewellery, while other additions related to jewellery would remain sustained.