ITAT Indore Judgments — October 2022

The Tribunal held that since the GST amount was paid before the due date of filing the return, Section 43B is not applicable for disallowance. The addition made by the CPC and confirmed by the CIT(A) was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the amended clause (c) of the first proviso to section 234C, which provides relief for income arising for the first time under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. The AO was directed to re-compute the interest accordingly.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), finding that the reassessment was based on 'borrowed satisfaction' and constituted a 'change in opinion'. The Tribunal agreed that the AO had not applied his own mind independently.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The assessment orders were set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The assessment orders were set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revision order was invalid. The Assessing Officer had conducted inquiries and considered the evidence presented by the assessee, taking a plausible view. Therefore, the revision order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of road construction, including the manufacturing of Ready Mix Concrete, qualifies as manufacturing. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the claim of additional depreciation.

The tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. Since the original assessment was under limited scrutiny for specific issues, the AO was not required to examine the closing stock valuation, which was outside the scope of the limited scrutiny. Therefore, the assessment order could not be deemed erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue on this ground.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty. It noted that the penalty notice was not specific regarding the charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and relied on jurisdictional High Court judgments where similar penalties were set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of addition of Rs. 1,51,29,975/- on account of income over expenditure, finding the CIT(A)'s order well-reasoned. It also upheld the deletion of addition of Rs. 10,41,64,945/- on account of unexplained expenditure, as the reference to the DVO was made without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of addition of Rs. 1,51,29,975/- on account of income over expenditure, finding the CIT(A)'s order well-reasoned. It also upheld the deletion of addition of Rs. 10,41,64,945/- on account of unexplained expenditure, as the reference to the DVO was made without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of share premium was not justified as the assessee had obtained valuation as per Rule 11UA. Regarding sundry creditors, the Tribunal held that Section 68 is not applicable to old opening balances that do not pertain to the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of unexplained cash deposits, as the assessee provided supporting cash book entries. However, the disallowance of development expenses was upheld due to lack of credible evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was accepted and Form 5 was issued. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of unexplained cash deposits, as the assessee provided supporting cash book entries. However, the disallowance of development expenses was upheld due to lack of credible evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Since the matter was covered by an APA, the Tribunal held that the appeal had become infructuous and was therefore dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the issue of expense claims remained undecided on merit and therefore, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the intention of the legislature is to prevent misuse of capital gains, and whether the investment is in the assessee's name or a family member's name is not the primary factor. The key is the proper utilization of funds within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment orders were indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as they were passed without proper inquiry or verification, especially concerning the large cash deposits. The revisionary power of the PCIT was justified.

The Tribunal held that the deposits were not solely from agricultural produce but also included re-deposits of cash withdrawals and disbursement of crop loans. Since agricultural income is exempt and the assessee had no other taxable income, the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements, withdrawal details, and a cash book, to explain the source of the cash deposits. The Tribunal found that the revenue had not presented any contrary material to disprove the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment orders were indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as they were passed without proper inquiry or verification, especially concerning the large cash deposits. The revisionary power of the PCIT was justified.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- as unexplained unsecured loan. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities, especially in the absence of supporting documents from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on surplus funds invested in short-term deposits, attributable to the business of providing credit facilities, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision on a similar issue.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on funds statutorily required to be kept as reserves is business income and eligible for deduction. It also directed that expenditure incurred for earning such interest income should be allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The Tribunal noted that the core facts were undisputed: the transaction was documented by a deed, the deed was signed, executed, and presented to the Sub-Registrar on 25.03.2010 but released on 05.06.2010, consideration was received by 25.03.2010, and possession was given by 25.03.2010. The Tribunal observed that the Ld. AO himself had given credit for the capital gain of Rs. 1,40,03,184/- already assessed in AY 2010-11 in his working. The Tribunal found that the Ld. AO was attempting to tax the same transaction in AY 2011-12 which had already been taxed in AY 2010-11, a practice not supported by any provision of the Income-tax law. Therefore, even without delving into the controversy of whether the registered deed released on 05.06.2010 related back to 25.03.2010, the Tribunal agreed that the transfer had effectively taken place on 25.03.2010. The decisions relied upon by the Revenue were deemed not relevant in light of these peculiar facts. The addition made by the Ld. AO was deleted, and the assessee's grounds were allowed.

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., up to 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 employees' contributions to PF/ESI paid after the due dates under PF/ESI laws but within the time allowed under Section 43B (i.e., up to 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 allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee is free to apply for recall of the order if their application under the scheme is rejected.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee is free to apply for recall of the order if their application under the scheme is rejected.