ITAT Indore Judgments — June 2021

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year, the disallowance under Section 14A was uncalled for. This decision was based on the High Court's ruling in Cheminvest Limited and the Tribunal's own previous decision in the assessee's case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made under Section 68. The Tribunal noted that similar issues concerning the same creditors (ADPL & CTPL) had been decided in favour of the assessees in previous judgments.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable and was dismissed.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice issued for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify the exact charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalties were levied have been deleted by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, the penalties themselves would not survive. Therefore, the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) are deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 23 crores based on a statement during a survey, without corroborating evidence, was uncalled for, especially when sales were accepted. It also found no infirmity in deleting disallowances of interest expenses and confirmed an ad-hoc disallowance for unverified expenses.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalties were levied have been deleted by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, the penalties themselves would not survive. Therefore, the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The core issue revolved around the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 to revise assessment orders concerning capital gains and deductions under Sections 54B and 54F.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 23 crores based on a statement during a survey, without corroborating evidence, was uncalled for, especially when sales were accepted. It also found no infirmity in deleting disallowances of interest expenses and confirmed an ad-hoc disallowance for unverified expenses.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The core issue revolved around the PCIT's invocation of Section 263, questioning the AO's assessment regarding capital gains and deductions under Sections 54B and 54F.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The core issue revolved around the PCIT's invocation of Section 263, questioning the AO's assessment regarding capital gains and deductions under Sections 54B and 54F.

The Tribunal held that the AO's observations were vague and based on surmises and conjectures without any evidence. It noted that the transactions were executed through banking channels on a recognized stock exchange and that the assessee had acted bonafidely. The Tribunal found that the AO had jeopardized the assessee's interest by making additions based on the alleged acts of market operators.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The core issue revolved around the PCIT's invocation of Section 263, questioning the AO's assessment regarding capital gains and deductions under Sections 54B and 54F.

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

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The core issue revolved around the PCIT's invocation of Section 263, questioning the AO's assessment regarding capital gains and deductions under Sections 54B and 54F.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020' and was required to withdraw the present appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The core issue revolved around the PCIT's invocation of Section 263, questioning the AO's assessment regarding capital gains and deductions under Sections 54B and 54F.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The core issue revolved around the PCIT's invocation of Section 263, questioning the AO's assessment regarding capital gains and deductions under Sections 54B and 54F.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The core issue revolved around the PCIT's invocation of Section 263, questioning the AO's assessment regarding capital gains and deductions under Sections 54B and 54F.

The Tribunal noted that the additions on which the penalties were based had already been deleted by a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT in earlier appeals. Consequently, the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalties were based have been deleted by a previous order of the Tribunal, the penalties themselves would not survive. Therefore, the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The core issue revolved around the PCIT's invocation of Section 263, questioning the AO's assessment regarding capital gains and deductions under Sections 54B and 54F.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 23 crores based on a statement during a survey, without corroborating evidence, was uncalled for, especially when sales were accepted. It also found no infirmity in deleting disallowances of interest expenses and confirmed an ad-hoc disallowance for unverified expenses.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The core issue was the PCIT's invocation of Section 263, questioning the AO's assessment regarding capital gains, and deductions under Sections 54B and 54F.

The Tribunal held that the evidence produced by the assessee supported the genuineness of the share transactions. Since the Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence and relied on a general report, the disallowance of the short-term capital loss was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The core issue revolved around the PCIT's invocation of Section 263, questioning the AO's assessment regarding capital gains and deductions under Sections 54B and 54F.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalties were levied have been deleted by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, the penalties themselves would not survive. Therefore, the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalties were levied have been deleted by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, the penalties themselves would not survive. Therefore, the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It noted that the assessees challenged the PCIT's invocation of Section 263, questioning the assessment of capital gains, and the allowability of deductions under Sections 54B and 54F.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 23 crores based on a statement during a survey, without corroborating evidence, was uncalled for, especially when sales were accepted. It also found no infirmity in deleting disallowances of interest expenses and confirmed an ad-hoc disallowance for unverified expenses.

The Tribunal held that the AO's observations were vague and based on surmises and conjectures without any evidence. It noted that the transactions were executed through banking channels on a recognized stock exchange and that the assessee had acted bonafidely. The Tribunal found that the AO had jeopardized the assessee's interest by making additions based on the alleged acts of market operators.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding that the assessee had justified its claim with relevant documents, including insurance settlement and confirmation of sale of damaged stock. The evidence presented sufficiently supported the lower valuation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The core issue revolved around the PCIT's invocation of Section 263, questioning the AO's assessment regarding capital gains and deductions under Sections 54B and 54F.

The Tribunal held that the AO's observations were vague and based on surmises and conjectures without any evidence. It noted that the transactions were executed through banking channels on a recognized stock exchange and that the assessee had acted bonafidely. The Tribunal found that the AO had jeopardized the assessee's interest by making additions based on the alleged acts of market operators.

The Tribunal held that the AO's observations were vague and based on surmises and conjectures without any evidence. It noted that the transactions were executed through banking channels on a recognized stock exchange and that the assessee had acted bonafidely. The Tribunal found that the AO had jeopardized the assessee's interest by making additions based on the alleged acts of market operators.

The Tribunal held that the AO's observations were vague and based on surmises and conjectures without any evidence. It noted that the transactions were executed through banking channels on a recognized stock exchange and that the assessee had acted bonafidely. The Tribunal found that the AO had jeopardized the assessee's interest by making additions based on the alleged acts of market operators.

The Tribunal held that the AO's observations were vague and based on surmises and conjectures without any evidence. It noted that the transactions were executed through banking channels on a recognized stock exchange and that the assessee had acted bonafidely. The Tribunal found that the AO had jeopardized the assessee's interest by making additions based on the alleged acts of market operators.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalties were levied have been deleted by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, the penalties themselves would not survive. Therefore, the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were deleted.

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

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without considering the merits of the case. The appeals were accordingly set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without considering the merits of the case. The appeals were accordingly set aside.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without considering the merits of the case. The appeals were accordingly set aside.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.