ITAT Indore Judgments — January 2022

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) after examining the paper book and the CIT(A)'s order. The Revenue's arguments did not point out any specific ambiguity in the lower appellate authority's decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for Section 54F deduction by entering into an agreement, making payment, and taking possession. The registration of the sale deed not being completed due to the seller's death was not a bar to claiming the exemption.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue of exemption claims during the original assessment and had not formed an adverse opinion. Therefore, reopening the assessment on the same issue constituted a change of opinion, making the reassessment proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by examining long-term capital gains without obtaining prior approval. The Tribunal also found that the assessee fulfilled all conditions for claiming exemption under Section 10(38) for long-term capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were primarily for the supply of plant and machinery, not for additional services like installation and supervision. It further found that the foreign suppliers did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as per the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA).

The Tribunal held that the transactions were primarily for the supply of plant and machinery, not for additional services like installation and supervision. It further found that the foreign suppliers did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as per the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA).

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that reinvestment in an independent residential unit, even if part of an existing house, qualifies for exemption under Section 54. The AO's order was based on verification of documents and aligned with judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the total business and agricultural income earned by the assessee in the preceding six years was sufficient to prove the genuineness of the accumulated past savings of Rs. 3,44,000/-. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not justified as the documents and statements relied upon were unrelated to the assessee and found at the premises of another entity. Payments to sub-contractors were made through banking channels with TDS deducted where applicable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the advances were made for commercial expediency. It emphasized that the Assessing Officer should consider the perspective of a prudent businessman when evaluating such expenditures.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not justified as the documents and statements relied upon were unrelated to the assessee and found at the premises of another entity. Payments to sub-contractors were made through banking channels with TDS deducted where applicable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including road construction and Ready Mix Concrete production, constitute manufacturing. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for deductions under Section 80IA(4), additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia), and investment allowance under Section 32AC.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered all evidence submitted by the assessee, not just the bank statement, and should have admitted documents under Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application without affording proper opportunity and without considering the object of the society properly. The Tribunal also noted that the objects of the society were for the benefit of entrepreneurs and traders, not limited to a particular group.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including road construction and Ready Mix Concrete production, constitute manufacturing. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for deductions under Section 80IA(4), additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia), and investment allowance under Section 32AC.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including road construction and Ready Mix Concrete production, constitute manufacturing. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for deductions under Section 80IA(4), additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia), and investment allowance under Section 32AC.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including road construction and Ready Mix Concrete production, constitute manufacturing. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for deductions under Section 80IA(4), additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia), and investment allowance under Section 32AC.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including road construction and Ready Mix Concrete production, constitute manufacturing. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for deductions under Section 80IA(4), additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia), and investment allowance under Section 32AC.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including road construction and Ready Mix Concrete production, constitute manufacturing. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for deductions under Section 80IA(4), additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia), and investment allowance under Section 32AC.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including road construction and Ready Mix Concrete production, constitute manufacturing. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for deductions under Section 80IA(4), additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia), and investment allowance under Section 32AC.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including road construction and Ready Mix Concrete production, constitute manufacturing. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for deductions under Section 80IA(4), additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia), and investment allowance under Section 32AC.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loan creditors. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were through banking channels and TDS was deducted on interest payments.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a note that the assessee could file a recall application if their scheme application was rejected.

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

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and applied his mind while allowing the deductions. The PCIT was not justified in invoking revisionary powers under section 263 as the AO had taken a plausible view after due verification.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper 'reason to believe' and the AO exceeded the scope of the notice. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found that the assessee made investments from own funds and not borrowed funds, and no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim to reduce the additional income offered was legitimate, citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The CIT(A)'s reasoning that the assessed income could not be below the declared income was deemed irrelevant for appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim to reduce the additional income offered was legitimate, citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The CIT(A)'s reasoning that the assessed income could not be below the declared income was deemed irrelevant for appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the case was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals. Therefore, the Revenue was not supposed to pursue this appeal as per CBDT instructions. The appeal was dismissed on preliminary grounds.

The Tribunal held that the slump sale was not a specified domestic transaction as it was not an expenditure covered under Section 40A(2)(b) and was a capital in nature. Furthermore, the transaction was disclosed in Form 3CEB with a specific note, and the penalty notice was vague.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the AO's inference was speculative and lacked cogent evidence, as the seized excel sheet did not mention any transfer of cash to the assessee, nor was the assessee's name mentioned. Statements recorded during the search also did not implicate the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to the trust's objects were elaborations of existing charitable purposes and not detrimental. It was also noted that the statutory requirement to intimate changes to the IT department was not applicable at the time of amendment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the AO's inference was speculative and lacked cogent evidence, as the seized excel sheet did not mention any transfer of cash to the assessee, nor was the assessee's name mentioned. Statements recorded during the search also did not implicate the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn because the assessee intended to pursue the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. The assessee was permitted to file a recall application if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn because the assessee intended to pursue the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. The assessee was permitted to file a recall application if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn because the assessee intended to pursue the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. The assessee was permitted to file a recall application if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to the trust's objects were elaborations of existing charitable purposes and not detrimental. It was also noted that the statutory requirement to intimate changes to the IT department was not applicable at the time of amendment.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made the requisite inquiries and considered the assessee's detailed explanation. Since the partners were already paying taxes at the maximum rate, there was no loss of revenue. Therefore, the revisionary order under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn because the assessee intended to pursue the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. The assessee was permitted to file a recall application if their scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from warehouse operations were business receipts, not rental income, based on the agreement which required the assessee to perform various services. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to the sale of land, finding that the sale pertained to a prior year and Section 43CA was not applicable. The Tribunal also noted a miscommunication regarding the addition for unaccounted sale of a flat.

The Tribunal held that the intimation order passed by the AO under Section 200A(1) on 06.02.2018 was beyond the one-year limitation period ending 31.03.2015. Consequently, the order was quashed, and the fee levied under Section 234E was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the AO's estimation was based on guesswork without incriminating evidence. The assessee had provided sufficient documentation and the sale of plots was accepted at market rates.