ITAT Indore Judgments — February 2023

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, based on the totality of contract terms, constituted infrastructure development rather than a mere works contract. The assessee was responsible for the entire project, including material procurement, funding, and post-completion maintenance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities constituted 'development' of infrastructure projects, not just a 'works contract'. This was based on the assessee's responsibility for project completion, material procurement, funding, expertise, and post-completion maintenance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, involving taking possession of sites, facilitating people, bearing responsibility for losses, using its own funds and expertise, and maintaining projects post-completion, constituted infrastructure development rather than a mere works contract. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80-IA(4) was allowable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, involving taking possession of sites, facilitating people, bearing responsibility for losses, using its own funds and expertise, and maintaining projects post-completion, constituted infrastructure development rather than a mere works contract. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80-IA(4) was allowable.

The Tribunal held that the capital gain, having already been taxed in AY 2011-12, could not be taxed again in AY 2012-13. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, involving taking possession of sites, facilitating people, bearing responsibility for losses, using its own funds and expertise, and maintaining projects post-completion, constituted infrastructure development rather than a mere works contract. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80-IA(4) was allowable.

The ITAT held that delayed payment of employee PF/ESI contributions beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective laws are not allowable deductions. The disallowance made under section 143(1) was upheld.

The ITAT held that delayed payment of employee PF/ESI contributions beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective laws are not allowable deductions. The disallowance made under section 143(1) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked when the assessee is not a shareholder of the lender company, and the transactions were inter-corporate deposits for business exigencies. The disallowances for conveyance and interest expenses were also found to be unjustified.

The ITAT held that delayed payment of employee PF/ESI contributions beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective laws are not allowable deductions. The disallowance made under section 143(1) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked when the assessee is not a shareholder of the lender company, and the transactions were inter-corporate deposits for business exigencies. The disallowances for conveyance and interest expenses were also found to be unjustified.

The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked when the assessee is not a shareholder of the lender company, and the transactions were inter-corporate deposits for business exigencies. The disallowances for conveyance and interest expenses were also found to be unjustified.

The Tribunal noted that the denial of exemption was based on the lack of evidence for Section 12A registration. However, the Section 143(1) intimation did indicate such registration. To resolve this discrepancy, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for re-verification of the registration status.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) ignored the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee, such as sale deeds, labour bills, and ledger statements, which supported the claim of cash sales.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment under Section 147 for the purpose of making a protective addition is not valid. The judicial precedents cited by the assessee support this view.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without properly verifying service of notices and that there was a genuine reason for the assessee's absence due to the death of their senior counsel's elder brother. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The ITAT held that delayed payment of employee PF/ESI contributions beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective laws are not allowable deductions. The disallowance made under section 143(1) was upheld.

The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credits and excess construction cost. The Tribunal found no cogent material to substantiate the additions made by the Revenue.

The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credits and excess construction cost. The Tribunal found no cogent material to substantiate the additions made by the Revenue.

The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credits and excess construction cost. The Tribunal found no cogent material to substantiate the additions made by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary verification and enquiry. The assessee had explained the cash deposits, including those related to the demonetization period, with supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to 2021-22, the non-obstante clause of Section 43B does not apply to employee contributions held in trust. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to deduction for belated payments of employee contributions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI paid beyond the due date was valid under section 143(1) if indicated in the audit report. Following Supreme Court decisions, belated payments are not deductible.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) was valid. The late deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC does not entitle the assessee to a deduction under section 36(1)(va).

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was justified. This was based on the Supreme Court's decision in the Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case, which disallowed delayed payments of PF and ESI after the statutory due date.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer rightly made the addition as the assessee failed to provide proper details regarding the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditor, and attempts to verify the creditor were unsuccessful.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of the capital asset occurred in AY 2011-12 based on the agreement date and possession handover, not solely on the sale deed registration date. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had offered the income and claimed exemptions in AY 2011-12, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to outstanding recovery, advances received, and advances against orders, finding that these were duly accounted for and supported by the assessee's books and remand reports. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition on short-term capital gains, as it was already offered by the assessee and constituted double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had considered the assessee's submissions and forwarded them to the AO, even though a formal remand report was not received. The CIT(A) also dealt with the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had considered the assessee's submissions and forwarded them to the AO, even though a formal remand report was not received. The CIT(A) also dealt with the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had considered the assessee's submissions and forwarded them to the AO, even though a formal remand report was not received. The CIT(A) also dealt with the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to the delay and refusal to admit additional grounds. The reasons provided for the delay were found to be insufficient and implausible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the identity, capacity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with the 40 investor companies. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was upheld.

The Tribunal held that since the AO accepted the returned income without making any additions under sections 69A or 69B, and the assessee successfully explained the source of the excess stock and cash as business income, Section 115BBE was not applicable. The CIT(A)'s decision to tax the income at normal rates was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance. The assessee had provided evidence of genuine business transactions, incurred losses on similar commodities on other exchanges, and the AO failed to provide cogent evidence to prove the losses were bogus.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance. The assessee had provided evidence of genuine business transactions, incurred losses on similar commodities on other exchanges, and the AO failed to provide cogent evidence to prove the losses were bogus.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and considered the assessee's submissions regarding the surrendered income and loans. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was not valid.

The Tribunal held that a difference of 2.30% in valuation, which is within the reasonable range of 10% accepted by the jurisdictional High Court, should not be treated as an undisclosed investment. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance on account of difference in billing was partly confirmed as the service tax component was not correctly accounted for. However, the disallowances related to salary and allowances paid to employees were deleted as the total employee cost did not increase and the allowances were justified.

The Tribunal held that a difference of 2.67% in valuation, similar to the 10% accepted by the jurisdictional High Court, is reasonable. Valuation is an estimation exercise and minor variations are expected.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The deletion of expenses was justified as the AO did not provide specific reasons for disallowance. The bad debt write-off was allowed as per Supreme Court rulings, and the bogus creditor addition was deleted as the assessee provided sufficient proof of the credit balance.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act by passing a summary ex-parte order without proper adjudication. The tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was correct in initiating revision proceedings. The AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it failed to properly consider the stamp duty valuation for both capital gains computation and Section 54F exemption.