ITAT Indore Judgments — February 2021

The Tribunal held that the CIT was not justified in rejecting the application solely based on a spelling mistake in the trust's name. The CIT should have provided an opportunity to rectify the error.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of transport expenses was ad-hoc in nature, and the Assessing Officer had not brought any adverse material on record to doubt the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the brokerage expenses were genuine and paid through account payee cheques, thus allowing the deletion of the disallowance. Regarding the Section 50C addition, the Tribunal found that the DVO's valuation was within 110% of the sale consideration, making the addition uncalled for.

The assessee requested permission to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. The revenue did not object to this request.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of a statement or surrender during a search, without any corroborating incriminating material, are not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee accepted to surrender Rs. 2 crores for AY 2013-14 and Rs. 28 crores for AY 2014-15, the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on this surrender without reference to other incriminating documents. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's representative failed to provide any incriminating material linking the impugned additions to the search, particularly the Rs. 30 crores addition. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, including its own decisions in ACIT vs Shri Sudeep Maheshwari and Ajit Singh Malhotra V/s ACIT, to conclude that the AO was not justified in making additions merely on the basis of statements given during the search without incriminating material. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 4,34,08,100/- in AY 2013-14 and Rs. 28,00,00,000/- in AY 2014-15. As the basis for levying penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271AAB(1)(c) was the deleted addition, the penalties were also deleted. The Revenue's appeals were partly allowed, and the assessee's appeals concerning the deleted additions and penalties were allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's legal ground regarding the AO exceeding the limited scrutiny scope due to lack of specific details. However, it deleted the disallowance of Rs. 6,80,000/-, finding the AO's action ad-hoc and without proper inquiry into the fair market value of services or legitimate business needs.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of a statement or surrender during a search, without any corroborating incriminating material, are not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee accepted to surrender Rs. 2 crores for AY 2013-14 and Rs. 28 crores for AY 2014-15, the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on this surrender without reference to other incriminating documents. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's representative failed to provide any incriminating material linking the impugned additions to the search, particularly the Rs. 30 crores addition. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, including its own decisions in ACIT vs Shri Sudeep Maheshwari and Ajit Singh Malhotra V/s ACIT, to conclude that the AO was not justified in making additions merely on the basis of statements given during the search without incriminating material. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 4,34,08,100/- in AY 2013-14 and Rs. 28,00,00,000/- in AY 2014-15. As the basis for levying penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271AAB(1)(c) was the deleted addition, the penalties were also deleted. The Revenue's appeals were partly allowed, and the assessee's appeals concerning the deleted additions and penalties were allowed.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal as the assessee was no longer interested in pursuing it due to the settlement under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove a reasonable cause for accepting cash loans, as banking facilities were available and electronic transfers are quick. Therefore, the assessee did not deserve immunity from the penalty.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal, which was not opposed by the learned Departmental Representative. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting the assessee's option under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to the assessee to file a revised application if Form-5 is not issued by the Income Tax Department within the prescribed period.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal by the assessee. The assessee was permitted to file a recall application if the compounding application was rejected or if they couldn't participate in the scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee is free to file a fresh application if Form 5 is not issued by the Income Tax Department.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee is free to file a fresh application if Form 5 is not issued by the Income Tax Department.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of commission expenses was not justified, relying on its own prior decision for the same assessee. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances for belated ESIC/EPF contributions and for alleged non-deduction of TDS on interest, as no such interest expenditure was claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the donations received were genuine and from creditworthy donors, and that the alleged irregularities in the education process were either sub-judice or not part of the show cause notice. The PCIT's cancellation of registration was therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. The Tribunal also allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and cross-objections.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the subscribers. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition for unexplained investment, finding that the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries and that the assessee's business as a finance broker was established. The addition for unaccounted interest income was also deleted as it was based on assumptions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of commission expenses was not justified, relying on its own prior decision for the same assessee. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances for belated ESIC/EPF contributions and for alleged non-deduction of TDS on interest, as no such interest expenditure was claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. The Tribunal also allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals and cross-objections.

The Tribunal held that the VAT subsidy received by the assessee was capital in nature, intended to meet capital investment for setting up a new unit in a backward area. Therefore, it was not taxable as revenue receipt.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees and the revenue as withdrawn/not pressed. Assessees/Revenue were granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order if their scheme application was not accepted.