ITAT Indore Judgments — November 2020

The Tribunal held that the penalty was bad in law because the Assessing Officer's notice was not specific, failing to mention the exact charge for levying the penalty. This lack of clarity rendered the penalty proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal found that the transactions were through banking channels and supported by documentation. It noted that the revenue authorities did not make sufficient efforts to verify the claims. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was not specific as it did not clearly state whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the transactions were through banking channels and supported by documentation. It noted that the revenue authorities did not make sufficient efforts to verify the claims. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the transactions were through banking channels and supported by documentation. It noted that the revenue authorities did not make sufficient efforts to verify the claims. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It was noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, which empowered the revenue authorities to charge fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could only be levied for defaults occurring on or after this date.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiry by examining the sale agreement, family partition memorandum, and bank passbook. The Tribunal found that the AO was satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits, and therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence to prove that the advance was made for business expediency. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was upheld.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that Form 10BB is required only after registration is granted. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It was noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It was noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

The tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessees were granted liberty to file miscellaneous applications if they did not receive the final form from the revenue within the stipulated period.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiry by examining the sale agreement, family partition memorandum, and bank passbook. The Tribunal found that the AO was satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits, and therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiry by examining the sale agreement, family partition memorandum, and bank passbook. The Tribunal found that the AO was satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits, and therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, which empowered the revenue authorities to charge fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could only be levied for defaults occurring on or after this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, which empowered the revenue authorities to charge fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could only be levied for defaults occurring on or after this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, which empowered the revenue authorities to charge fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could only be levied for defaults occurring on or after this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, which empowered the revenue authorities to charge fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could only be levied for defaults occurring on or after this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, which empowered the revenue authorities to charge fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could only be levied for defaults occurring on or after this date.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It was noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It was noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It was noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

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

The Tribunal held that since the expenditure crystallized in AY 2007-08, the assessee was justified in claiming it as an expenditure for that year. The system of accounting (cash vs. mercantile) was not relevant as the amount was an advance that became an expenditure in the relevant year.