ITAT Indore Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal held that since the assessees are agriculturists and the land sold was likely rural agricultural land, an opportunity should be given to present their case and evidence before the AO. The matter was remanded for proper examination of evidence and assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148 to a deceased person are invalid. The Assessing Officer should have followed the provisions of Section 159(2) and brought the legal representative on record.

The Tribunal held that employee contributions 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 years in question.

The Tribunal held that employee contributions 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 years in question.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT did not have the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Consequently, the order of the PCIT was quashed, and the approval and registration were ordered to be restored to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO. It found that the AO's satisfaction for reopening was borrowed, lacked independent inquiry, and the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine Solanki or controvert his affidavit.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT did not have the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Consequently, the order of the PCIT was quashed, and the approval and registration were ordered to be restored to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the registration under Section 12AA. The authority competent to pass such an order, as per CBDT notifications, was the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Bhopal.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO. It found that the AO's satisfaction for reopening was borrowed, lacked independent inquiry, and the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine Solanki or controvert his affidavit.

The Tribunal held that since the assessees are agriculturists and the land sold was likely rural agricultural land, an opportunity should be given to present their case and evidence before the AO. The matter was remanded for proper examination of evidence and assessment.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of having filed a response to a notice and the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic. Considering these factors, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal upheld the AO's application of an 18.43% gross profit rate, finding it had a basis in the preceding year's earnings and the assessee provided no justification for their lower rate. The claim for deduction of education cess was dismissed due to retrospective amendment of Section 40(a)(ii).

The Tribunal held that the deposit made in the CGAS before the due date of furnishing the return of income fulfills the condition for exemption under Section 54 for the relevant assessment year. The subsequent utilization or non-utilization of the deposited amount is a separate issue not relevant for the current assessment year.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim of receiving funds from the sale of ancestral land was supported by a sale deed, the lack of details regarding the date and mode of payment in the deed prevented proper correlation. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's admission of potential capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the AO had already examined the difference in receipts and was satisfied with the assessee's explanation. Therefore, the PCIT's order to re-examine the issue was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the show-cause notice issued by the AO did not specify any particular charge of default. The AO's own orders also showed uncertainty regarding the exact nature of the default.

The Tribunal found that the assessees had furnished necessary documentary evidence for the genuineness of share capital during earlier proceedings, which was not rebutted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, relief was granted to the assessees.

The Tribunal found that the assessees had furnished necessary documentary evidence for the genuineness of share capital during earlier proceedings, which was not rebutted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, relief was granted to the assessees.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application under Section 158A(1) to apply the High Court's decision. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, with the assessee agreeing not to raise the same issue in further appeals.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application under Section 158A(1) to apply the High Court's decision. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, with the assessee agreeing not to raise the same issue in further appeals.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified. Since the assessee had not claimed LTCG or exemption under Section 10(38), the addition under Section 68 for accommodation entry was incorrect.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unexplained cash credits and unsecured loans, finding the assessee's explanations and evidence sufficient. The Tribunal also upheld the partial relief granted for unexplained expenses.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not applicable if no exempt income is earned. Consequently, the addition made to the book profit under Section 115JB was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not applicable if no exempt income is earned. Consequently, the addition made to the book profit under Section 115JB was also deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's request to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme for bonafide reasons.

The CIT(A) granted full relief to the assessee in the appeal against the fresh assessment order. Therefore, the assessee requested to withdraw the current appeal as no grievance remained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee qualified as a developer for Section 80IA(4) purposes due to its responsibilities in developing and maintaining infrastructure. It also upheld the allowability of the provision for repair and maintenance, relying on Supreme Court precedent.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had correctly disallowed Rs. 14,221/- (interest on TDS) and allowed the remaining Rs. 1,86,840/- (interest on indirect taxes) as it was held to be allowable by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's liquidation process and the unintentional non-compliance. It decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the VSV scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits were not availed for bonafide reasons.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider all three bank accounts of the assessee and selectively focused on smaller withdrawals. The Tribunal found that the total cash withdrawals were substantially more than the deposits, and the time gap was acceptable, thus explaining the source of the deposits.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 10,80,000/- was not sustainable as the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the seller. The contradictory statements of the seller and the lack of corroborative evidence against the assessee were also considered.

The Tribunal held that the assessee qualified as a developer for Section 80IA(4) purposes due to its responsibilities in developing and maintaining infrastructure. It also upheld the allowability of the provision for repair and maintenance, relying on Supreme Court precedent.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has now provided legible copies of the audited accounts. Therefore, the appeals are set aside and remanded back to the CIT(E) to grant 80G registration after considering the legible documents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has now provided legible copies of the audited accounts. Therefore, the appeals are set aside and remanded back to the CIT(E) to grant 80G registration after considering the legible documents.

The Tribunal held that the objections raised by the CIT(E) were not valid grounds for rejecting the registration. The Tribunal found that the trust deed contained the necessary clauses, the objects were for a religious purpose open to the public, and the lack of immediate audit reports was understandable for a newly formed trust.

The Tribunal held that the objections raised by the CIT(E) were not valid grounds for rejecting the registration. The Tribunal found that the trust deed contained the necessary clauses, the objects were for a religious purpose open to the public, and the lack of immediate audit reports was understandable for a newly formed trust.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2012-13, the interest paid by the assessee to the partnership firm was already offered to tax and reflected in the firm's accounts, thus disallowance was incorrect. For AY 2009-10, the expenses were reflected in the balance sheet and could not be ignored. Therefore, both additions were not justified.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2012-13, the interest paid by the assessee to the partnership firm was already offered to tax and reflected in the firm's accounts, thus disallowance was incorrect. For AY 2009-10, the expenses were reflected in the balance sheet and could not be ignored. Therefore, both additions were not justified.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer ignored the purchaser's confirmation regarding the sale of a plot and advance payment of Rs. 3,50,000/-. Therefore, the addition to the extent of Rs. 3,50,000/- was not justified.