ITAT Indore Judgments — March 2022

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding bad debts and additions, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions. The cross-objections related to reassessment were dismissed, but the claim for deduction of education cess was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 43B and 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, with a specific effective date, is not retrospective. Therefore, payments made before the due date of filing the return but after the statutory due date were allowable.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT erred in invoking section 263 as there was no material to suggest the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The Pr.CIT had not properly verified the assessment records, including the documents submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, are not retrospective and are applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for AY 2019-20, the disallowance made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the amendment by Finance Act, 2021, clarifying the 'due date' for employee's contribution, is not retrospective. Therefore, payments made before the filing of the return of income, even if after the statutory due date, should be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, with its explanatory notes, is not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI paid after the statutory due date but before the return filing date was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the amendment by Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the 'due date' for Section 36(1)(va), was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, payments made before the return filing due date were eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, with a specific effective date of April 1, 2021, are not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made for the assessment year 2018-19 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified. The Tribunal relied on various High Court decisions which held that belated payments of employee's contribution to PF and ESI, if paid before the filing of the return of income, should be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) for late payment of employee's PF and ESI contributions was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the Finance Act, 2021 amendments were not retrospective and relied on High Court decisions favoring the assessee in cases of debatable issues.

The Tribunal held that the amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, clarifying the 'due date' for deposit of employee contributions, were prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. Therefore, the addition was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to ESIC and PF was not justified as the Finance Act, 2021 amendments were not retrospective for the assessment year in question. The excise duty disallowance was to be verified by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, clarifying the 'due date' for Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, are not retrospective for the assessment year in question. Therefore, payments made before the return filing due date should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, citing the pending rectification application and the lack of deliberate attempt to delay. The delay was condoned, and the matter was set aside for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee did not follow the proper procedure for condoning the delay before the CIT(A), explanations were provided. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after the assessee files a proper condonation application with an affidavit.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, with an effective date of April 1, 2021, is not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, the deduction for employee's contribution to PF and ESI deposited before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals filed by the assessees. The assessees are free to file applications to recall the order if their application under the scheme is not accepted or they are unable to participate in the scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals filed by the assessees. The assessees are free to file applications for recall of the order if their application under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme is not accepted or if they are unable to participate in the scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals filed by the assessees. The assessees are free to file applications to recall the order if their application under the scheme is not accepted or they are unable to participate in the scheme.

The Tribunal held that delayed ESI/PF payments are not disallowable if deposited before the return filing due date, and the incentive income from ITC Ltd. was already offered to tax, making the addition a double taxation. Therefore, both adjustments were set aside.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding bad debts and additions, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions. The cross-objections related to reassessment were dismissed, but the claim for deduction of education cess was allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding bad debts and additions, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions. The cross-objections related to reassessment were dismissed, but the claim for deduction of education cess was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing the payer's confirmation and address, and by requesting the AO to summon the payer under Section 131 at the assessee's cost. Since the AO did not act on this request, the addition was not valid.

The Tribunal held that the addition for unsecured loans from KCL Infra Projects Limited was not justified as the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were established. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowances under Section 14A and ad hoc expenses, but partly allowed the revenue's appeal on agricultural income and depreciation on motor cars.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 were not legally sustainable as the issue was already examined during the regular assessment proceedings under Section 153A, and there was no fresh material to justify the reopening. The Tribunal found that the reassessment was based on a change of opinion.

The Tribunal held that the addition for unsecured loans from KCL Infra Projects Limited was not justified as the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were established. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowances under Section 14A and ad hoc expenses, but partly allowed the revenue's appeal on agricultural income and depreciation on motor cars.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 were not legally sustainable as the issue was already examined during the regular assessment proceedings under Section 153A, and there was no fresh material to justify the reopening. The Tribunal found that the reassessment was based on a change of opinion.

The Tribunal found that the assessee, engaged in real estate, had provided sufficient documentary evidence like sale deeds and bank statements to explain cash deposits. The AO's claims that the assessee had not shown sales or maintained records were found factually incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of share capital was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as the assessee provided sufficient evidence of genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of shareholders. The addition for unjustified payments to contractors was also deleted as the CIT(A) found the explanation for cash withdrawals to be plausible. The claim for education cess deduction was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vague as it did not specify the exact charge under Section 271(1)(c). Furthermore, the additions on which the penalty was levied were ultimately deleted in the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the assessee, engaged in real estate, had provided sufficient documentary evidence like sale deeds and bank statements to explain cash deposits. The AO's claims that the assessee had not shown sales or maintained records were found factually incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the assessee, engaged in real estate, had provided sufficient documentary evidence like sale deeds and bank statements to explain cash deposits. The AO's claims that the assessee had not shown sales or maintained records were found factually incorrect.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding cash and foreign currency, finding it sufficiently explained. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the disallowance of proportionate interest on unsecured loans, reversing the lower authorities' findings.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a cash flow statement which adequately explained the sources of the bank deposits. The lower authorities had not conclusively rebutted this statement. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in observing that the assessee did not file an application under Rule 46A for submitting additional evidence. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had indeed filed such an application, and the CIT(A)'s order contained a mistake in this regard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted sufficient inquiry by perusing the assessee's submissions, capital gain calculations, and sale deeds. The Tribunal also noted that similar income was treated as long-term capital gain in the preceding assessment year and accepted by the revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element of the unaccounted trading transactions should be taxed, not the entire purchase amount. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition made by the AO, as the assessee had offered the profit and the transactions were in the nature of trading.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69D was not sustainable as the genuineness of the transaction and the period of borrowing were not proven. Since the addition was deleted, the penalty under Section 271D was also deleted as its foundation was baseless.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and High Court rulings on this matter.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A). It found that the seized documents primarily related to business transactions and that the income from these transactions had already been offered to tax by the assessee's husband, Shri Shyam Garg, and accepted by the AO in his case.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69D was not sustainable as the genuineness of the transaction and the period of borrowing were not proven. Since the addition was deleted, the penalty under Section 271D was also deleted as its foundation was baseless.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and High Court rulings on this matter.