ITAT Indore Judgments — January 2023

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80-IB(10) is allowable even if a part of the housing project is completed by the cut-off date. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal found no corroborative evidence to support the claim of a cash loan and directed its deletion.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80-IB(10) is allowable even if a part of the housing project is completed by the cut-off date. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal found no corroborative evidence to support the claim of a cash loan and directed its deletion.

The Tribunal held that the initial filing of SFT with NIL information was due to a bona fide mistake by the accountant, who was not familiar with the technicalities of the Income Tax Act. The subsequent manual submission of details, despite technical difficulties in online filing, demonstrated a genuine effort to comply.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding Ground No. 1, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the receipts of Rs. 9,37,56,268/- were not in the nature of business, trade, or commerce, and thus did not violate Section 2(15). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had conducted a detailed analysis of the activities. For Ground No. 2, the Tribunal found that the AO's observations regarding payments to specified persons under Section 13(3) were general, lacked cogent basis, and were self-contradictory. The Tribunal also noted that similar controversies in earlier assessment years were decided in the assessee's favour and that no disallowance under Section 13 was made in subsequent assessments for similar payments. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s reversal of the AO's action was upheld. Consequently, for Ground No. 3, since the AO's reasons for denying exemption under Sections 11 and 12 (violations of Section 2(15) and Section 13(1)(c)) were rejected, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order allowing exemption. Ground No. 4 was general and not adjudicated separately. The operative direction was to dismiss the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. To prevent miscarriage of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh reasoned order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80-IB(10) is allowable even if a part of the housing project is completed by the cut-off date. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal found no corroborative evidence to support the claim of a cash loan and directed its deletion.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80-IB(10) is allowable even if a part of the housing project is completed by the cut-off date. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal found no corroborative evidence to support the claim of a cash loan and directed its deletion.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80-IB(10) is allowable even if a part of the housing project is completed by the cut-off date. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal found no corroborative evidence to support the claim of a cash loan and directed its deletion.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance of NMCE losses. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as not pressed, except for the issue of cess deduction which was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner erred in invoking Section 263 as the assessee had already declared the higher salary income in their return of income. The assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance of NMCE losses. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as not pressed, except for the issue of cess deduction which was remanded.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the CIT(A) had considered the assessee's evidence and relied on identical facts in previous and subsequent assessment years where the CUP method was accepted. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections as not pressed.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO. It noted that the issue was well-settled in favour of the assessee in previous years, and there was no change in facts or law.

The Tribunal found that certain facts regarding the usage of buildings/godowns for eligible 80P activities and treatment in other assessment years were unverified. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the CIT(A) had considered the assessee's evidence and relied on identical facts in previous and subsequent assessment years where the CUP method was accepted. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections as not pressed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the CIT(A) had considered the assessee's evidence and relied on identical facts in previous and subsequent assessment years where the CUP method was accepted. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections as not pressed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Delhi High Court's ruling in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT. It held that Section 14A would not apply if no exempt income was received or receivable by the assessee during the relevant previous year.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal without complying with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the levy and calculation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) are intrinsically linked to the sustenance of additions. Since the additions were deleted, the penalty cannot survive.

The Tribunal held that opening balances of loans taken in earlier years, appearing as opening balances in the current year's books, cannot be added under Section 68. It also noted that the Assessing Officer invoked Section 68 for an issue that seemed to relate to Section 41(1).

The Tribunal remanded the issue of share premium addition to the AO for verification of the exact number of shares. It allowed the deduction for duties and taxes paid and also allowed the upfront fee paid for cash credit limit renewal as revenue expenditure. The addition on account of the difference in sundry creditor balance was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made due inquiries during the assessment proceedings, and the assessee had established the nexus between interest-bearing loans and the advancement of such loans for earning interest income. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the revision order was not time-barred due to extensions granted during the Covid-19 pandemic. It also found no merit in the assessee's claim that the revision order was passed improperly, as the assessee had failed to respond to the show-cause notice.

The Tribunal held that the 'right to collect toll' is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Previous ITAT decisions consistently supported this view.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition related to insurance premiums. It found that the assessee had provided a cash flow statement explaining the source of funds, and the income had already been offered to tax, making the addition a case of double taxation.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition related to insurance premiums. It found that the assessee had provided a cash flow statement explaining the source of funds, and the income had already been offered to tax, making the addition a case of double taxation.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition related to insurance premiums. It found that the assessee had provided a cash flow statement explaining the source of funds, and the income had already been offered to tax, making the addition a case of double taxation.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) who had restricted the addition. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision after examining the details of loans and advances.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) who had restricted the addition. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision after examining the details of loans and advances.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not produced bank statements to substantiate their claim of lower cash deposits, either before the PCIT or the Tribunal. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the PCIT for necessary verification of the bank statements.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) who had restricted the addition. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision after examining the details of loans and advances.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were indeed bogus, the addition should be restricted to the profit element rather than the entire purchase amount. They accepted the assessee's alternative prayer to restrict the addition to 8% of the sales turnover.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s direction for further investigation to be appropriate given the facts. The appeal by the Revenue was considered devoid of merit.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions by the CIT(A). The AO's remand report confirmed that the assessee's books of account were maintained and the financial statements were based on them, negating the need for estimated profits or additions for unexplained credits.

The Tribunal found that no material facts were brought on record to rebut the AO's findings. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication upon considering the evidence.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to provide notice to the appellant and consider any evidence filed by them.

The Tribunal found that while the lower authorities were correct in rejecting the updated cash balance due to lack of supporting documents, the initial statements made during the search regarding unaccounted sales should be considered bonafide. Therefore, the addition was restricted to a more reasonable amount.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and applied his mind before passing the assessment order. The Tribunal found that the AO had taken a possible view based on the evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's submissions regarding non-receipt of notices due to portal glitches and failed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT passed the revision order without considering the assessee's reply filed on the ITBA portal on the scheduled hearing date. Therefore, the revision order was deemed against the principles of law and justice.

The Tribunal held that in a non-abated assessment year, additions under section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the addition was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary action was based on mere suspicion and that the revision order was passed without properly considering the assessee's reply, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the revision order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and considered the documents submitted by the assessee before completing the assessment. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT was not valid.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries regarding the disallowance u/s 14A and the assessee had provided adequate replies. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's contention that the disallowance should be limited to the exempt income had been accepted in its own case for a prior assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made specific inquiries and considered the documents submitted by the assessee regarding agricultural income. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was not valid.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the appeal order before the scheduled hearing dates. Due to grave mistakes in the AO's assessment order, including double disallowance and non-speaking reduction of deduction, the case was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the Assessing Officer was aware of unserved notices and made no further effort to serve them. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be genuine and that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without an opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the land was indeed agricultural land, as evidenced by sale deeds, land records, and a prior Wealth Tax order. Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 54B was not justifiable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was required to file an audit report under Section 92E due to specified domestic transactions. Consequently, their due date for filing the return was November 30th, and since they filed on that date, the return was within time. Therefore, the disallowance of the Section 80IA(4) deduction was incorrect.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to produce employment agreements. The CIT(A) is directed to verify if the differential amount was indeed salary income received from the employer.