ITAT Indore Judgments — March 2021

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted a detailed inquiry, including a reference to the TPO, and had taken a plausible view. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided documentary evidence and explanations for the cash in hand as on 31.03.2016, which was sufficient to cover the difference. The earlier assessment for AY 2016-17, which was scrutinized, did not make any additions regarding cash in hand, implying acceptance of the assessee's position.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on an estimated valuation of watches, without expert opinion, were not sustainable. Similarly, foreign travel expenses were partly sustained after considering the assessee's business activities.

The Tribunal held that the cash refunds were not cash credits under Section 68 as they represented the return of genuine advances given in earlier years through banking channels. Regarding bogus creditors, the Tribunal found these to be advances for plot bookings, not sundry creditors, and thus Section 41(1)(a) was not applicable.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals filed by the assessees. The assessees were permitted to file a recall application if their application under the scheme was rejected or they were unable to participate.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals filed by the assessees. The assessees were permitted to file a recall application if their application under the scheme was rejected or they were unable to participate.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the assessee's books of account. The Tribunal found that the discrepancies noted by the AO were rebutted by the assessee's evidence, and the increased direct expenses adequately explained the losses. Therefore, the book results should be accepted.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals filed by the assessees. The assessees were permitted to file a recall application if their application under the scheme was rejected or they were unable to participate.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to decide the legal ground regarding the service of notice under Section 148. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide this legal ground.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals filed by the assessees. The assessees were permitted to file a recall application if their application under the scheme was rejected or they were unable to participate.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) passed orders without properly examining the merits of the case. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals filed by the assessees. The assessees were permitted to file a recall application if their application under the scheme was rejected or they were unable to participate.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the assessee's books of account. The Tribunal found that the discrepancies noted by the AO were rebutted by the assessee's evidence, and the increased direct expenses adequately explained the losses. Therefore, the book results should be accepted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of development expenses as the AO's addition was based on presumption. The Tribunal also ruled that an amount already offered to tax in a subsequent year cannot be taxed again.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's cross-objections. Regarding the deletion of additions based on estimated sale consideration from seized documents, the Tribunal found no inconsistency in the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal noted that the sale consideration received from the sale of extra land to M/s. N.R. Finance Pvt. Ltd. was already included in the gross sales shown by the assessee, and the profit arising therefrom was offered to tax. This was verifiable from the development charges paid. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 15,67,401/- for AY 2013-14 in the case of M/s. N.R. Company. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the AO's action of making additions based on third-party information without providing an opportunity for cross-examination violates the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's cross-objection, stating that the specific request for cross-examination was denied by the AO. Therefore, additions made by the AO based on seized documents from the broker's premises deserved to be deleted on this legal ground as well. All grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed, and all appeals of the Revenue were dismissed. The cross-objections raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's cross-objections. Regarding the deletion of additions based on estimated sale consideration from seized documents, the Tribunal found no inconsistency in the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal noted that the sale consideration received from the sale of extra land to M/s. N.R. Finance Pvt. Ltd. was already included in the gross sales shown by the assessee, and the profit arising therefrom was offered to tax. This was verifiable from the development charges paid. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 15,67,401/- for AY 2013-14 in the case of M/s. N.R. Company. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the AO's action of making additions based on third-party information without providing an opportunity for cross-examination violates the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's cross-objection, stating that the specific request for cross-examination was denied by the AO. Therefore, additions made by the AO based on seized documents from the broker's premises deserved to be deleted on this legal ground as well. All grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed, and all appeals of the Revenue were dismissed. The cross-objections raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's cross-objections. Regarding the deletion of additions based on estimated sale consideration from seized documents, the Tribunal found no inconsistency in the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal noted that the sale consideration received from the sale of extra land to M/s. N.R. Finance Pvt. Ltd. was already included in the gross sales shown by the assessee, and the profit arising therefrom was offered to tax. This was verifiable from the development charges paid. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 15,67,401/- for AY 2013-14 in the case of M/s. N.R. Company. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the AO's action of making additions based on third-party information without providing an opportunity for cross-examination violates the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's cross-objection, stating that the specific request for cross-examination was denied by the AO. Therefore, additions made by the AO based on seized documents from the broker's premises deserved to be deleted on this legal ground as well. All grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed, and all appeals of the Revenue were dismissed. The cross-objections raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of development expenses as the AO's addition was based on presumption. The Tribunal also ruled that an amount already offered to tax in a subsequent year cannot be taxed again.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's cross-objections. Regarding the deletion of additions based on estimated sale consideration from seized documents, the Tribunal found no inconsistency in the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal noted that the sale consideration received from the sale of extra land to M/s. N.R. Finance Pvt. Ltd. was already included in the gross sales shown by the assessee, and the profit arising therefrom was offered to tax. This was verifiable from the development charges paid. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 15,67,401/- for AY 2013-14 in the case of M/s. N.R. Company. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the AO's action of making additions based on third-party information without providing an opportunity for cross-examination violates the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's cross-objection, stating that the specific request for cross-examination was denied by the AO. Therefore, additions made by the AO based on seized documents from the broker's premises deserved to be deleted on this legal ground as well. All grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed, and all appeals of the Revenue were dismissed. The cross-objections raised by the assessee were allowed.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's cross-objections. Regarding the deletion of additions based on estimated sale consideration from seized documents, the Tribunal found no inconsistency in the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal noted that the sale consideration received from the sale of extra land to M/s. N.R. Finance Pvt. Ltd. was already included in the gross sales shown by the assessee, and the profit arising therefrom was offered to tax. This was verifiable from the development charges paid. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 15,67,401/- for AY 2013-14 in the case of M/s. N.R. Company. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the AO's action of making additions based on third-party information without providing an opportunity for cross-examination violates the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's cross-objection, stating that the specific request for cross-examination was denied by the AO. Therefore, additions made by the AO based on seized documents from the broker's premises deserved to be deleted on this legal ground as well. All grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed, and all appeals of the Revenue were dismissed. The cross-objections raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable as no incriminating material was found during the search, and the income was offered voluntarily to buy peace. The AO's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was also found to be lacking.