ITAT Indore Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal held that the initial application was filed on March 31, 2000, and the subsequent refiling of documents was merely to facilitate the process. Therefore, the CIT should have granted registration from the date of the original application, April 1, 1999.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not substantially financed by the government, thus not eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab). However, it allowed the alternative claim for exemption under Sections 11/12 and remanded the matter to the AO for computation.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 10(23C) mandates applications to be filed by a specific date, and there is no provision for condoning delays after its introduction. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner was justified in not granting retrospective approval.

The Tribunal held that employees' contributions to PF/ESI paid after the due dates under PF/ESI laws but within the time allowed under section 43B (i.e., before the due date for filing the return of income) are allowable as a deduction. The recent amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that employees' contributions to PF/ESI paid after the due dates under PF/ESI laws but within the time allowed under Section 43B (i.e., by the due date for filing the return of income) are allowable as a deduction. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that employees' contributions to PF/ESI paid after the due dates under PF/ESI laws but within the time allowed under Section 43B (i.e., by the due date for filing the return of income) are allowable as a deduction. The recent amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction of brokerage expenses, noting that the broker had already paid tax on this amount. The Tribunal also considered the cost of acquisition based on prior orders for co-owners.

The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal ex-parte due to the continuous absence of the assessee's representative. The Ld. D.R. relied on the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the excess cash found during the survey, even if found at business premises, falls under Section 69A if the assessee cannot explain its source. Consequently, it is taxable at the higher rate under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had correctly applied under Section 12A(1)(aa)/(ab) for registration under Section 12AA, not Section 12AB. The CIT(E) erred in misinterpreting the application as premature.

The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic provided a valid reason for the assessee's non-compliance with the notices. It was deemed just and fair to allow the assessee an opportunity to submit their replies.

The Tribunal held that the excess cash found during the survey, even if found at business premises, falls under Section 69A if the assessee cannot explain its source. Consequently, it is taxable at the higher rate under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the excess cash found during the survey, even if found at business premises, falls under Section 69A if the assessee cannot explain its source. Consequently, it is taxable at the higher rate under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the show-cause notice issued by the AO was vague, containing both charges of "concealed the particulars of income" and "furnished inaccurate particulars of income" without specifying which limb was applicable. This violated the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to contest the matter as it had become infructuous. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to properly consider the assessee's submissions and did not provide adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271AAA was defective as it did not specify the limb of the section under which the penalty was being levied. This procedural defect rendered the penalty order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous appeal for AY 2015-16, which was decided in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty for AY 2016-17 was also not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the 'due date', was not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, the due date was interpreted as the statutory due date under the respective Acts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a renowned agriculturist with substantial land holdings and awards, had sufficient agricultural income. The Tribunal also noted that cash withdrawals were re-deposited, and agricultural income is non-taxable, thus the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable.

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

The Tribunal held that the issue of eligibility for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) is debatable and cannot be decided under Section 143(1). Therefore, the AO wrongly denied the exemption and the rectification order was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that interest on grants and subsidies is taxable as income from other sources, and interest on late TDS payment is not allowable as a business deduction. The issue of bad debts was not elaborated upon in the provided text, but the overall outcome suggests it was also not fully allowed.

The ITAT held that the reasons advanced by the CIT(E) were not adequate for the rejection of registration. On the issue of payments to persons specified in Section 13(1)(c), the Tribunal found that such payments are relevant for the previous year's income computation under Sections 11 and 12, which only apply after registration is granted. Therefore, violations of Section 13(1)(c) are not relevant at the stage of granting registration under Section 12AA. Regarding the alleged violation of Sections 269SS/269T, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that such violations have different consequences (penalties) and do not impede the grant of registration. Concerning the incorrect PAN numbers, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that it was a technical mistake made to expedite filing, without any mala fide intention, and deemed it not a fatal point for denying registration. The Tribunal also noted that Section 12AA allows rejection only if the CIT(E) is not satisfied with the objects or genuineness of activities, and the CIT(E)'s order did not record any such dissatisfaction. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and directed him to grant registration as applied for.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the written submissions filed by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be imposed without a clear finding as to whether there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty orders were not sustainable as the specific charge was not mentioned.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. It was noted that if the assessee fails to avail the VSV scheme for bonafide reasons, they can seek restoration of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be imposed without a clear finding as to whether there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty orders were not sustainable as the specific charge was not mentioned.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal should be allowed. The Tribunal observed that while the Ld. CIT(E) had raised objections in the first application, the assessee had subsequently removed these objections before filing the second application. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(E)'s rejection of the second application was based solely on the assertion that there was no change in the objects, which the Tribunal found to be unsubstantiated. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. AR had successfully demonstrated that the objectionable objects had been removed, and this submission was not controverted by the Ld. DR. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that rejecting the second application for registration under Section 12AA amounted to a miscarriage of justice and that the assessee deserved registration. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to grant the registration as applied for.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities did not properly consider the assessee's submissions regarding comparable transactions and the deficiencies in the land's quality and location. Following a coordinate bench decision, the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to pass an order after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard, as the assessee claimed they were not given sufficient opportunity.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) to present their case.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 4,635/- for late payment of ESI contribution, holding that payments made up to the due date of filing the return are allowable. The Tribunal also remanded the issues of bonus expenditure and professional tax disallowances back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.