ITAT Indore Judgments — August 2021

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without properly examining the merits. The penalties were imposed based on quantum additions which were also set aside by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge the onus to prove unaccounted investment as there was no concrete evidence of payments over and above the registered deed value. The addition was based on guesswork and presumption, which is not sustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the AO failed to discharge the onus of proving that the assessee had paid consideration over and above what was stated in the registered sale deeds.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to discharge the onus of proving that the assessee had paid any consideration over and above what was stated in the registered sale deeds. The Tribunal also noted that certain provisions of the Income Tax Act were not applicable retrospectively.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without properly considering the merits. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the conditions specified in the proviso to Section 206C(6A) by furnishing Form 27BA certified by a Chartered Accountant. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271CA was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without properly considering the merits. The penalties were imposed based on quantum additions which were also set aside by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without properly considering the merits. The penalties were imposed based on quantum additions which were also set aside by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without considering the merits. The Tribunal also noted that quantum appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without considering the merits. The Tribunal also noted that quantum appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without considering the merits. The Tribunal also noted that the quantum appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A).

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. The penalties were based on quantum additions which were also set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) and the penalties were imposed without proper consideration of the merits. The appeals were therefore set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without proper examination of the merits. The penalties were based on quantum additions, which were also 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. The penalties were based on quantum additions which were also 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. The penalties were based on quantum additions which were also 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. The penalties were based on quantum additions which were also set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable for MAT provisions for the assessment years in question. The rectification application was considered valid as the non-applicability of MAT was a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without properly considering the merits. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without properly considering the merits. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without properly considering the merits. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the AO failed to discharge the onus of proving that the assessee had paid consideration over and above what was stated in the registered sale deeds.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without properly considering the merits. The penalties were imposed based on quantum additions which were also set aside by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) and the penalties were imposed without proper consideration of the merits. The appeals were therefore set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) and the penalties were imposed without proper consideration of the merits. The appeals were therefore set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without properly considering the merits. The Tribunal quashed the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the conditions specified in the proviso to Section 206C(6A) by furnishing Form 27BA certified by a Chartered Accountant. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271CA was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without properly considering the merits. The Tribunal quashed the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable for MAT provisions for the assessment years in question. The rectification application was considered valid as the non-applicability of MAT was a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without properly considering the merits. The Tribunal quashed the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without properly considering the merits. The Tribunal quashed the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without properly considering the merits. The Tribunal quashed the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed a one-sided order without properly examining the merits. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeals back.

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

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard. The Commissioner passed an order without properly examining the merits of the case, which is not just. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner is set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and the order was passed without considering the merits of the case.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal as the assessee intended to pursue the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file the audit report in Form 10CCB along with the return is a directory condition, not mandatory. Since the reports were filed during the assessment proceedings and examined by the Assessing Officer, the assessment orders were not erroneous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and the Assessing Officer passed an order without proper examination of the merits.

The Tribunal held that if an assessment is reopened on a specific ground, any other income can only be added if it relates to the original ground for reopening. Since no addition was made on the initial ground, other additions made by the AO were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file the audit report in Form 10CCB along with the return is a directory condition, not mandatory. Since the reports were filed during the assessment proceedings and examined by the Assessing Officer, the assessment orders were not erroneous.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty for the assessee to file a revised application within the prescribed period.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) had passed a one-sided order without properly considering the merits of the case, and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing.

The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal as they had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and Form-5 was issued by the revenue. The tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal.

The ITAT held that the penalty was imposed based on a certain quantum of disallowance, which was subsequently deleted by the CIT(A). Since the basis for the penalty no longer existed, the penalty itself could not sustain. Therefore, the ITAT upheld the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry into the method of profit ascertainment and applied his mind to the details provided by the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient enquiry and applied his mind based on documentary evidence, including a completion certificate from the Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a developer, not a contractor, based on various agreements and permissions. The denial of deduction under Section 80IB(10) was therefore incorrect. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to the validity of additions made post-search in non-abated assessment years.

The tribunal accepted the legal ground raised by the assessees, stating that no incriminating material was found during the search. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee trust carried out both religious and charitable activities, and the expenditure of a religious nature did not exceed the 5% limit of total receipts as stipulated in Section 80G(5B). Therefore, the denial of approval was incorrect.