ITAT Indore Judgments — April 2021

The Tribunal held that in the money lending business, varying interest rates for loans given and taken are a matter of commercial expediency. The assessee is independent to conduct its business in its best interest, and the rate of interest charged depends on various circumstances.

The Tribunal held that in the money lending business, varying interest rates for loans given and taken are a matter of commercial expediency. The assessee is independent to conduct its business in its best interest, and the rate of interest charged depends on various circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the transactions of earning LTCG from the sale of equity shares were neither bogus nor sham, and thus eligible for exemption under Section 10(38). Additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

The Tribunal held that evidence on record, such as detailed trading accounts and VAT returns, should be preferred over oral statements made under stress during a survey. The additions made by the AO were deleted as the assessee had provided supporting documentation.

The Tribunal deleted additions for closing stock undervaluation, sales without stock, and quantity loss, finding the AO's basis for these additions to be incorrect. The rejection of book results was also deemed unjustified. However, a part of the addition for household expenses was sustained.

For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 4,50,000, finding that the assessee failed to explain the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal treated the Rs. 35,00,000 cash deposit as unaccounted business receipts and applied a net profit rate of 8%, resulting in an addition of Rs. 2,80,000.

For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 4,50,000, finding that the assessee failed to explain the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal treated the Rs. 35,00,000 cash deposit as unaccounted business receipts and applied a net profit rate of 8%, resulting in an addition of Rs. 2,80,000.

The Tribunal held that the second limb of Section 2(22)(e) applies when a shareholder has a substantial interest in a concern (which includes a company) to which a loan is advanced. Since a common shareholder had substantial interest in both the lender companies and the assessee company, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were attracted.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 as the AO had already examined the issues and applied his mind. The AO had taken a permissible view, and the Principal CIT could not impose his own view or direct a fuller inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and taken a plausible view. The Pr. CIT could not substitute his own opinion for that of the AO when sufficient material was available and examined.

The Tribunal held that the transactions of earning LTCG from the sale of equity shares were neither bogus nor sham, and thus eligible for exemption under Section 10(38). Additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee has applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and the revenue did not object. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment after four years was bad in law as there was no allegation of failure by the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly. The AO's belief that the deduction was incorrectly allowed amounted to a 'change of opinion' without tangible material.

The Tribunal found that while some documents were submitted, they were not correctly reflected in the application form. The Tribunal also noted a discrepancy in the PAN used for the application. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after rectifying the defects.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessee is free to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme is not accepted by the revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessee is free to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme is not accepted by the revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessee is free to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme is not accepted by the revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessee is free to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme is not accepted by the revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal to be withdrawn and permitted the assessee to withdraw their cross-objection. Both were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessee is free to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme is not accepted by the revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessee is free to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme is not accepted by the revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessee is free to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme is not accepted by the revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessees were permitted to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme was not accepted or if they could not participate in the scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessees were permitted to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme was not accepted or if they could not participate in the scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessees were permitted to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme was not accepted or if they could not participate in the scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessees were permitted to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme was not accepted or if they could not participate in the scheme.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals filed by the assessee. The assessee was granted liberty to file a recall application if their application under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme was not accepted or if they were unable to participate in the scheme.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals filed by the assessee. The assessee was granted liberty to file a recall application if their application under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme was not accepted or if they were unable to participate in the scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessees were permitted to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme was not accepted or if they could not participate in the scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessees were permitted to file an application for recall of the order if their application under the scheme was not accepted or if they could not participate in the scheme.

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals filed by the assessee. The assessee was granted liberty to file a recall application if their application under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme was not accepted or if they were unable to participate in the scheme.