ITAT Indore Judgments — February 2022

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence, finding sufficient cause for the delay due to the fire. Consequently, the Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to commission expenses and share capital, as the assessee satisfied the conditions under Section 68 with the admitted evidence.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and Form 5 was issued by the revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted a contradiction in the CIT(A)-NFAC's order regarding the assessee's submissions and the migration of the appeal to the faceless system. To ensure justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for a proper hearing.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and their application was accepted. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance. The commission agents provided services in pre-tender and post-tender activities, which are part of commercial expediency and not prohibited in government contracts.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance. The commission agents provided services in pre-tender and post-tender activities, which are part of commercial expediency and not prohibited in government contracts.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263 solely based on the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty valuation, especially when the assessee had provided explanations and supporting documents. The Tribunal found that the AO had made sufficient inquiries in this regard during the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was validly served as the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings without objection. Regarding the addition under Section 68, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the creditors.

The Tribunal found that the assessee admitted non-compliance due to office shifting and the Revenue agreed to set aside the matter. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT (Exemption) for a fresh decision.