ITAT Indore Judgments — May 2021

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' and requested to withdraw the present appeals. The departmental representative did not object to this request.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their onus by establishing the genuineness of the share transactions and satisfying the conditions for exemption. The Tribunal found that the company 'Sunrise Asian Limited' was neither a penny stock nor a paper company.

The Tribunal held that the purchase and sale transactions were genuine, conducted through banking channels and the Demat account. Despite the broker's registration being cancelled prior to the purchase, the Tribunal found no evidence of unaccounted money generation and considered the assessee a bona fide purchaser.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted a detailed inquiry and taken a plausible view, making the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 unwarranted. The AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263 without conducting a proper independent inquiry and giving a finding on merits. The Pr. CIT's order was found to be partly correct, specifically regarding the examination of payments made to a related person (son of a partner) for rent and legal fees.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing documentary evidence for the share transactions, which were conducted through banking channels and on a recognized stock exchange. The Tribunal found that the AO's inquiry was deficient and lacked cogent material to prove the transactions were sham or accommodation entries.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their onus by establishing the genuineness of the share transactions and satisfying the conditions for exemption. The Tribunal found that the company 'Sunrise Asian Limited' was neither a penny stock nor a paper company.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their onus by establishing the genuineness of the share transactions and satisfying the conditions for exemption. The Tribunal found that the company 'Sunrise Asian Limited' was neither a penny stock nor a paper company.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their onus by establishing the genuineness of the share transactions and satisfying the conditions for exemption. The Tribunal found that the company 'Sunrise Asian Limited' was neither a penny stock nor a paper company.

The tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross objections due to significant delay. Regarding the revenue's appeals, the tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IB as the plant was ready for use before the cut-off date.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were carried out through a recognized stock exchange, fulfilling the conditions for exemption under Section 10(38). The denial of cross-examination and non-disclosure of investigation wing's information violated natural justice principles.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were carried out through a recognized stock exchange, fulfilling the conditions for exemption under Section 10(38). The denial of cross-examination and non-disclosure of investigation wing's information violated natural justice principles.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide cogent material to sustain the additions. The Tribunal found that the assessees had filed sufficient documents to prove the genuineness of share transactions and fulfilled the conditions for LTCG exemption.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68 of the Act by providing evidence of share purchase and sale through banking channels and demat accounts. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide cogent material to sustain the addition.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were carried out through a recognized stock exchange, fulfilling the conditions for exemption under Section 10(38). The denial of cross-examination and non-disclosure of investigation wing's information violated natural justice principles.

The tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross objections due to significant delay. Regarding the revenue's appeals, the tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IB as the plant was ready for use before the cut-off date.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide cogent material to sustain the additions. The Tribunal found that the assessees had filed sufficient documents to prove the genuineness of share transactions and fulfilled the conditions for LTCG exemption.

The Tribunal held that the purchases from M/s Unique Enterprises were genuine, supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted sales to M/s Unique Enterprises and that the supplier's own assessment accepted sales to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged the onus by establishing the genuineness of the share transactions and satisfying the conditions for exemption under Section 10(38). Therefore, the LTCG was rightly claimed as exempt, and no addition was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was vague and based on surmises. It noted that no evidence was brought on record to establish the assessee's involvement in price rigging or any connection with the company's management. The Tribunal also emphasized the violation of principles of natural justice due to the non-provision of investigation reports and cross-examination opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing documentary evidence for the share transactions, which were conducted through banking channels and on a recognized stock exchange. The Tribunal found that the AO's inquiry was deficient and lacked cogent material to prove the transactions were sham or accommodation entries.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68 of the Act by providing evidence of share purchase and sale through banking channels and demat accounts. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide cogent material to sustain the addition.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessees are free to file a recall application if their application under the scheme is rejected by the revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessees are free to file a recall application if their application under the scheme is rejected by the revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessees are free to file a recall application if their application under the scheme is rejected by the revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessees are free to file a recall application if their application under the scheme is rejected by the revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessees are free to file a recall application if their application under the scheme is rejected by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not served within the stipulated time and in accordance with the prescribed procedure under Section 282 of the Act. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not justified. The difference in stock statements was explained by the assessee as an inflated estimate provided to the bank for higher credit, which is a common practice and not a basis for addition under Section 69B when books of accounts are otherwise found to be genuine.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was done after 4 years without alleging failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. It was considered a change of opinion on the same set of facts, making the reassessment void ab initio.