ITAT Indore Judgments — November 2022

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was to be granted an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a retracted statement recorded under Section 132(4) without any corroborative evidence. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Tribunal decisions supporting this view.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the AO to examine the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and provide a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a retracted statement recorded under Section 132(4) without any corroborative evidence. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Tribunal decisions supporting this view.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a retracted statement recorded under Section 132(4) without any corroborative evidence. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Tribunal decisions supporting this view.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a retracted statement recorded under Section 132(4) without any corroborative evidence. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Tribunal decisions supporting this view.

The Tribunal held that 10% of the payments received by non-resident companies were taxable in India due to the activities of their agents in negotiating prices and concluding contracts. However, it ruled that Section 195A of the Act was not applicable for grossing up the payments as there was no agreement for the assessee to bear the Indian taxes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the AO regarding the difference between gross receipts and actual receipts from a contractor, finding that the assessee had correctly offered the net amount received as income. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's cross-objections.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. The AO had made inquiries and accepted the assessee's claim after considering the evidence, and the PCIT could not revise the order based on a change of opinion or without specifying the necessary inquiries missed by the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the AO regarding the difference between gross receipts and actual receipts from a contractor, finding that the assessee had correctly offered the net amount received as income. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's cross-objections.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the AO regarding the difference between gross receipts and actual receipts from a contractor, finding that the assessee had correctly offered the net amount received as income. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's cross-objections.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the VAT subsidy was a capital receipt. The subsidy was granted for promoting industrial development and was linked to capital investment, not directly to sales.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the conditions stipulated under Section 271AAA(2) by specifying and substantiating the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived during the search proceedings. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271AAA(1) was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made additions after considering the assessee's submissions and conducting inquiries. The PCIT's view amounted to a change of opinion, and Section 263 was not rightly invoked as the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that there was no allegation of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars in the penalty orders. Since the appeals against the assessment orders were still pending, the Tribunal found no merit in confirming the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries regarding sundry creditors and had applied his mind to the facts. The Pr. CIT cannot substitute his own judgment for that of the AO merely because he has a different opinion. The assessment order was not found to be erroneous.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) passed a brief order without discussing the details provided by the assessee or the reasons for ineligibility. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that there was no allegation of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars in the penalty orders. Since the appeals against the assessment orders were still pending, the Tribunal found no merit in confirming the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the income derived from leasing out properties in the mall falls under the head 'Income from Business'. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for depreciation on all business assets, including the mall building, if they were put to use or ready for use.

The Tribunal held that merely because creditors were outstanding for more than three years does not automatically attract Section 41(1), especially when the liability was disclosed in the balance sheet and payments were made in subsequent years. The assessee had successfully proved the identity of creditors and the payments made to them.

The Tribunal held that the income from leasing out properties in the mall falls under the head 'Income from Business' as it aligns with the company's predominant object. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for depreciation on business assets, including the mall building, if they are put to use or ready for use.

The Tribunal held that the income from leasing out properties in the mall falls under the head 'Income from Business' as it aligns with the company's predominant object. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for depreciation on business assets, including the mall building, if they are put to use or ready for use.

The Tribunal held that the income from leasing out properties in the mall falls under the head 'Income from Business' as it aligns with the company's predominant object. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for depreciation on business assets, including the mall building, if they are put to use or ready for use.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, agreeing that the surrender of the sub-tenancy right constituted a valid transfer for capital gains. The Tribunal also found that the loss on sale of shares, which was allowed to be set off by the CIT(A), was genuine and supported by documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) are intrinsically linked to the sustenance of additions. Since the additions were deleted by the ITAT, the penalties imposed on those amounts cannot survive, irrespective of pending appeals before the High Court.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the application for registration. The assessee argued that they are both religious and charitable trusts and are entitled to registration, referencing a previous ITAT order and a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the application for registration. The assessee argued that they are both religious and charitable trusts and are entitled to registration, referencing a previous ITAT order and a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) are intrinsically linked to the sustenance of additions. Since the additions were deleted by the ITAT, the penalties imposed on those amounts cannot survive, irrespective of pending appeals before the High Court.

The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) are intrinsically linked to the sustenance of additions. Since the additions were deleted by the ITAT, the penalties imposed on those amounts cannot survive, irrespective of pending appeals before the High Court.

The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) are intrinsically linked to the sustenance of additions. Since the additions were deleted by the ITAT, the penalties imposed on those amounts cannot survive, irrespective of pending appeals before the High Court.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act by not stating points for determination and reasons for the decision. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a final opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) before the appeal was decided ex parte. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to dispose of the appeal by stating the points for determination, decision, and reasons as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned appellate order was set aside.

The assessee requested to withdraw the current appeal as a rectification order had been passed on 16.09.2022, rendering the appeal infructuous. The department did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction for interest on indirect taxes and deleted the disallowance of interest on TDS, finding it to be a double disallowance. The appeal regarding the loss on sale of car was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others' was followed.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal as Section 200A, prior to its amendment, did not empower the authorities to demand such fees. Decisions in favour of the assessee by other High Courts and Tribunals were followed.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal as Section 200A, prior to its amendment, did not empower the revenue authorities to demand such fees. Decisions in favour of the assessee were followed.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. Therefore, the orders confirming the levy were reversed.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others'.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the PCIT's revision order was not valid as the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and taken a plausible view, supported by case law.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others'.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others vs. UOI'.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others'.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was illegal for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not permit such demands before the amendment. The Tribunal followed the decision in 'Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others'.