ITAT Indore Judgments — August 2022

The Tribunal held that the assessee's non-compliance with notices was due to the genuine and valid reason of the Covid-19 pandemic. It was deemed just and fair to allow the assessee an opportunity to submit its replies.

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 Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and had paid the required tax. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous due to the subsequent acceptance of the exemption application. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance for commission expenses, finding sufficient evidence. However, the issue of short-term capital gains was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of the ITAT is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer and the appellate authority who passed the orders, not by the assessee's place of business or where books are maintained. Since the lower authorities were in Ahmedabad, the Indore Bench lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee provided a proper reconciliation, and the difference was explained. The receipt of Rs. 48,00,757/- was taxed in an earlier year, and the private receipts of Rs. 23,45,260/- were declared and taxed in the current year. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the onerous circumstances faced by the assessee and the principle of substantial justice. The quantum appeals and the penalty appeal were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for non-compliance to be genuine, considering his background as a rural agriculturist with limited education. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration to ensure substantial justice and a proper assessment.

The Tribunal held that materials from third parties cannot be used as evidence against the assessee without proper substantiation and opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal also emphasized that the value declared in the registered deed should be given credence. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 263 read with Section 143(3) had been completed. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the onerous circumstances faced by the assessee and the principle of substantial justice. The quantum appeals and the penalty appeal were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal as the assessee was no longer interested in pursuing it due to the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was justified in refusing registration because the assessee failed to comply with the requirements and provide necessary documents to verify the genuineness of its activities.

The Tribunal held that the EPF contributions were paid within the prescribed EPF law due dates, and even if paid later but before the return filing due date, they are allowable. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's practice of booking prior period expenses due to short-provisioning in a large organization, noting no double deduction occurred.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the onerous circumstances faced by the assessee and the principle of substantial justice. The quantum appeals and the penalty appeal were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based on assumptions and presumptions without corroborative evidence. Following previous ITAT rulings on similar facts, the Tribunal found no direct or indirect nexus between the seized documents and the assessee, and thus deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that the AO's approach was contradictory, as he remained silent on delivery-based transactions during assessment but considered them for penalty. The Tribunal also noted that the scale of transactions did not necessarily imply business and that there could be two views on the nature of transactions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified. The employees' contributions paid after the due dates under PF/ESI laws but within the time allowed under Section 43B are allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest because it failed to adequately examine and address the material found during the survey. The PCIT's order to set aside the assessment and direct a fresh assessment was upheld.

The Tribunal held that since the FDR was in the assessee's name and the assessee claimed credit for TDS and obtained a refund, it consciously accepted the interest income as its own. Therefore, the AO was correct in taxing the interest income.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim that the transaction was already taxed in AY 2008-09 and that the same income should not be taxed twice. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the original agreement and the prior taxation.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit of Rs. 2,40,000/- by the assessee, who is neither a minor nor engaged in business, is covered by CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 2,40,000/- made by the lower authorities deserves to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that employees' contributions to PF/ESI paid after the statutory due dates but within the extended due date 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 upheld the additions made by the lower authorities, finding the capital gains transactions to be not genuine. The Tribunal noted suspicious factors like the purchase of shares in cash, delayed credit to Demat account, and the company's weak financials.

The Tribunal found significant issues raised by the assessee regarding the opportunity for defense, verification of facts, and computation of capital gains. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a proper assessment.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified. Relying on a coordinate bench decision, it was found that for the assessment year in question, payments made before the filing of the return of income were allowable, as the amendments clarifying the 'due date' were not retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by various judicial pronouncements, including a coordinate bench decision. The Tribunal found that the legislative intent is to allow expenditure when payment is actually made, and treating belated payments as deemed income is not justified.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified. Relying on various judicial pronouncements, including a coordinate bench decision, it was found that the assessee had deposited the amounts within the time permitted under Section 43B of the Act, which is up to the due date for filing the return of income.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified. Relying on a coordinate bench's decision, it was found that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee, and the disallowance did not sustain.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was a developer and builder, not merely a contractor. It found that the assessee had conceived the project, undertaken construction as per approved plans, and entered into comprehensive sale agreements for complete residential units, making it eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by various judicial pronouncements. The disallowance made by the authorities below was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by various judicial pronouncements. The amendment to Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified the 'due date', was not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made by the authorities below was not justified.

The Tribunal held that since the determination of taxable income was based on estimation and not on concrete facts, it was not a case of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that an identical penalty for the subsequent assessment year was deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to consider the matter afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and considering relevant evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case and evidence before the CIT(A).

The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeals before the Tribunal, having complied with the formalities of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that they did not wish to proceed with the appeal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeals before the Tribunal, having complied with the formalities of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.