ITAT Indore Judgments — September 2021

The Tribunal is hearing an appeal against an order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, which revises an assessment order made under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. The specific decision of the tribunal is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans. The First Appellate Authority had confirmed the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that since the income declared during the survey was offered to tax in the return filed within the due date, and the AO accepted the returned income, the assessee cannot be held to have concealed particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which mandates dismissal of pending appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs, was applicable. The tax effect in these appeals was stated to be within the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal held that the agricultural land was not a capital asset until its diversion. It also found that the addition for unexplained credit was unsustainable as the source of funds was explained, and the addition for estimated net profit was unjustified given the audited accounts.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO. It found that the seized documents pertained to land sale projects of the Jhaveri Group, not the assessee's construction business, and lacked corroborative evidence directly linking the alleged 'on-money' to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock and cash were part of the business income, as disclosed by the assessees in their books. The AO's method of adding it as income from other sources without rejecting the books of accounts was not justified. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which mandates dismissal of pending appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs, was applicable. The tax effect in these appeals was stated to be within the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock and cash were part of the business income, as disclosed by the assessees in their books. The AO's method of adding it as income from other sources without rejecting the books of accounts was not justified. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that TDS provisions are not applicable to the purchase of materials. The transactions in question did not involve an element of service, thus no TDS was deductible.

The Tribunal held that the hardship compensation received by the assessee, along with a larger flat, is a capital receipt and not taxable as income. The Tribunal relied on previous ITAT decisions that treated similar compensation as capital in nature.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 25% of the commission expenses, citing a previous decision on similar facts. The Tribunal found that while the claim lacked complete documentary evidence, a partial disallowance was justified to cover this deficiency.

The Tribunal held that the addition could not be made solely on the basis of loose papers written in pencil and impounded from a third party, especially when the assessee denied the payment. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions on similar issues.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the creditor companies had sufficient reserves and surplus as per their audited balance sheets to advance the loans. The mere association of an entry operator with the creditors' addresses was not sufficient to doubt the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that imposing fees under Section 234E for delayed TDS statement filing was not justified for periods prior to June 1, 2015. This was based on previous judgments of the Tribunal and other courts.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the sale of Kappac Pharma Limited shares was identical to a previous case decided by the same bench. The shares were not penny stocks or shell companies, and the disallowance was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that imposing fees under Section 234E for delayed TDS statement filing was not justified for periods prior to June 1, 2015. This was based on previous judgments of the Tribunal and other courts.

The Tribunal held that imposing fees under Section 234E for delayed TDS statement filing was not justified for periods prior to June 1, 2015. This was based on previous judgments of the Tribunal and other courts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also held that since the additions forming the basis for the penalty were deleted, the penalty itself would not survive.

The Tribunal held that imposing fees under Section 234E for delayed TDS statement filing was not justified for periods prior to June 1, 2015. This was based on previous judgments of the Tribunal and other courts.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the share capital received was either for business assets transferred or from applicants who appeared, explained their sources, and confirmed their investment. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous judgments of the Coordinate Bench and other benches which had found the transactions in the shares of M/s. Sun Rise Asian Ltd. to be genuine. Therefore, the exemption claimed by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous judgments of the Coordinate Bench and other benches which had found the transactions in the shares of M/s. Sun Rise Asian Ltd. to be genuine. Therefore, the exemption claimed by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions with documentary evidence. The revenue failed to discharge its onus to disprove the transactions with cogent evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions with documentary evidence. The revenue failed to discharge its onus to disprove the transactions with cogent evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions with documentary evidence. The revenue failed to discharge its onus to disprove the transactions with cogent evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions with documentary evidence. The revenue failed to discharge its onus to disprove the transactions with cogent evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's accumulated agricultural income from 23 acres of land over the past 10 years was sufficient to explain the cash deposits and demand draft purchases. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening under Section 147 was valid, the addition made by the AO was invalid because the assessee was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine the parties who allegedly received 'on-money'. This was considered a violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be allowed if the related income was declared under IDS 2016 and the TDS was not claimed elsewhere. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the TDS details.

The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be allowed if the related income was declared under IDS 2016 and the TDS was not claimed elsewhere. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the TDS details.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions related to advances for agricultural land as the assessee provided sale registries and confirmations proving the genuineness of the transactions. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection regarding an addition of Rs. 2 lacs, finding it was a refund of an advance and not income.

The tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeals as the assessee is no longer willing to pursue them. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal as the assessee was no longer interested in pursuing it due to the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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

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

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeals as the assessee is no longer willing to pursue them. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee intended to pursue the "Vivad se Vishwas scheme". The assessee is free to file a recall application if their application under the scheme is rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing sufficient documents for the loans from directors. It also found that the rejection of books of accounts and estimation of income were not justified, and the disallowance of loss was incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the property was registered and taxed as residential, with electricity bills also reflecting residential use. Therefore, the exemption under Section 54F was rightly claimed.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeals as the assessee is no longer willing to pursue them. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal held that the amount in question was a liability against the purchase of a fixed asset, not a trading liability. Therefore, Section 41(1) was not applicable, and the addition made by the lower authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee intended to pursue the "Vivad se Vishwas scheme". The assessee is free to file a recall application if their application under the scheme is rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements, audited balance sheets, and repayment of loans with TDS, to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to properly serve the notice under Section 143(2) on the assessee within the stipulated time. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 50,000 as the assessee failed to provide contrary material. However, the Tribunal dismissed the addition of Rs. 11,30,80,000, finding that the AO relied on third-party information without corroborative evidence and failed to discharge the onus of proof.