ITAT Indore Judgments — October 2021

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient details of donors, and the donations could not be considered anonymous. Regarding interest receipts, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for reconciliation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient details of donors, and the donations could not be considered anonymous. Regarding interest receipts, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for reconciliation.

The Tribunal held that the AO had duly examined the issue of warranty provision with due application of mind, and the allowance of deduction upon utilization/reversal was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. This was because the original provision was not claimed as a deduction in the year of its creation.

The assessee requested to withdraw the current appeal as they have opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration under Section 12AA was erroneous, and the additions made by the AO based on loose sheets were unsubstantiated. The assessee was considered a charitable society eligible for exemptions under Sections 11 & 12.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law due to violation of natural justice principles as the assessee was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses or confront evidence. Furthermore, the CIT(A)'s addition was deleted as the receipts were already accounted for and taxed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law due to violation of natural justice principles as the assessee was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses or confront evidence. Furthermore, the CIT(A)'s addition was deleted as the receipts were already accounted for and taxed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law due to violation of natural justice principles as the assessee was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses or confront evidence. Furthermore, the CIT(A)'s addition was deleted as the receipts were already accounted for and taxed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law due to violation of natural justice principles as the assessee was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses or confront evidence. Furthermore, the CIT(A)'s addition was deleted as the receipts were already accounted for and taxed.

The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration under Section 12AA was erroneous, and the additions made by the AO based on loose sheets were unsubstantiated. The assessee was considered a charitable society eligible for exemptions under Sections 11 & 12.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO invoking Section 115BBE was not sustainable as the search was conducted before the amendment came into force. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was considered just and proper.

The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) was not applicable as no allowance or deduction was claimed for the loss, and the assessee derived no tax advantage. The Assessing Officer had conducted proper enquiries and applied his mind, making the assessment order not erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for the delay in filing the TDS return up to 01.06.2015 deserves to be deleted. However, the fee levied for the default committed from 01.06.2015 onwards should be confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unexplained unsecured loans was not sustainable as it was not the subject matter for which the reassessment proceedings were initiated. The AO failed to make any addition on the core issue for which the notice under Section 148 was issued.

The Tribunal held that the fair market value of the shares was higher than the consideration received, and the valuation was done in accordance with Explanation (a)(ii) of Section 56(2)(viib) using a valuer's report for land. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unexplained unsecured loans was not sustainable as it was not the subject matter for which the reassessment proceedings were initiated. The AO failed to make any addition on the core issue for which the notice under Section 148 was issued.

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271AAB cannot be levied as no search was conducted on the assessee, and the assessment was completed under section 153C, not 153A. The manner of penalty calculation was also found to be incorrect.