ITAT Indore Judgments — March 2023

The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the Ld. PCIT under Section 263 was not warranted and quashed it, restoring the original assessment order. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries regarding the sources of jewellery, and the assessee had provided thorough written explanations which were reproduced in the assessment order. The AO had considered each submission and made a conscious decision. Regarding the wills, the Tribunal noted that they were executed on stamp papers and witnessed. They agreed with the assessee that wills do not attract stamp duty or require registration, and their absence during the search did not automatically lead to an adverse inference. For gifts, the AO had accepted only 40% of the claimed amount, indicating due consideration. The Tribunal reiterated the principle that if the AO takes one of the possible views permissible in law, the assessment order cannot be deemed erroneous, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Company. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex parte without granting an opportunity of hearing. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that ad-hoc disallowances without specific defects or evidence are not permissible. For the interest paid issue, the Tribunal found that the AO had disallowed the entire net interest without proper verification and remitted the issue back to the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. It found that the deemed dividend addition was not applicable as the assessee was not a shareholder in the lending company. The rental income was already offered by the assessee, and the disallowance of interest was deleted as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds.

The Tribunal held that the transactions did not constitute a loan or deposit, and therefore, Sections 269SS and 269T were not applicable. Consequently, the penalties levied were rightly deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee's agent was not of independent status and was acting on behalf of the non-resident payees, establishing a business connection in India. Therefore, the assessee was liable for TDS.

The Tribunal agreed that the appeal had become infructuous due to the subsequent revisionary order and the fresh assessment. The assessee was given liberty to raise all issues before the CIT(A) in the pending appeal against the fresh assessment order.

The Tribunal held that since the sale of the agricultural land did not materialize due to the buyer's default, there was no 'transfer' of the capital asset. Consequently, no capital gains tax was leviable, and the penalty was also unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary action was invalid because it was based on a proposal from lower authorities and not on the Principal Commissioner's own examination of the records. The Tribunal quashed the revision order, restoring the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in the business of power generation and had consistently claimed and been allowed this deduction in prior years. The CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction was found to be correct.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not given adequate opportunity to the assessee to contest the matter on merit. Therefore, the issues were remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication, ensuring the principles of natural justice are followed.

The Tribunal held that the transactions did not constitute a loan or deposit, and therefore, Sections 269SS and 269T were not applicable. Consequently, the penalties levied were rightly deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that since the sale of the agricultural land did not materialize due to the buyer's default, there was no 'transfer' of the capital asset. Consequently, no capital gains tax was leviable, and the penalty was also unsustainable.

The tribunal allowed the deletion of an addition made on the basis of a benami account as there was no cogent evidence. It also deleted an addition related to cash found during the search, accepting the assessee's cash flow statement and practical cash holding. However, additions related to jewellery and silver items were upheld as relief was already granted.

The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the Ld. PCIT under Section 263 was not warranted. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries regarding the sources of jewellery and that the assessee had provided a thorough explanation in writing, which was reproduced in the assessment order. The AO had considered each submission made by the assessee and passed the assessment order after accepting jewellery received by way of wills fully and jewellery received by way of gifts partly. The Tribunal noted that the photocopies of the wills were executed on stamp papers and duly witnessed, and the PCIT had not raised any objections regarding their content that would suggest they were fake. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that stamp duty is not attracted to wills and registration is not required, and that it is not necessary for every item to be found during a search. Regarding gifts, the Tribunal observed that the AO accepted only 40% of the claimed amount, indicating a conscious decision. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had taken one of the possible views permissible in law, and therefore, the assessment order could not be termed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Consequently, the revision order was quashed, and the original assessment order was restored.

The ITAT allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal and dismissed it as withdrawn. The tribunal also granted the assessee the liberty to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be invoked for making protective additions. Furthermore, the 'on-money' received from the sale of agricultural land, which is not a capital asset, is also not taxable.

The Tribunal held that ad-hoc disallowances without specific defects or evidence are not permissible. For the interest paid issue, the Tribunal found that the AO had disallowed the entire net interest without proper verification and remitted the issue back to the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the CIT(A). It found that the interest expenditure was properly recorded in the books of account and that the disallowances were consequential to additions under Section 68 which had already been deleted in earlier years.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the CIT(A). It found that the interest expenditure was properly recorded in the books of account and that the disallowances were consequential to additions under Section 68 which had already been deleted in earlier years.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the CIT(A). It found that the interest expenditure was properly recorded in the books of account and that the disallowances were consequential to additions under Section 68 which had already been deleted in earlier years.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted sufficient and detailed inquiry into the matter, including the source of the cash deposit of Rs. 11,08,000. The AO had examined the sale agreement, court orders pertaining to the property dispute, and other documents submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the AO was satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the cash being kept at home due to pending litigation and subsequently deposited during demonetization. The Tribunal observed that the PCIT's finding of lack of inquiry was a non-application of mind and a colorable exercise of power. The Tribunal emphasized that when an AO, after due inquiry, adopts a view permissible in law, and the Commissioner disagrees, it does not automatically render the order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, unless the AO's view is unsustainable. In this case, the AO's conclusion was based on an exhaustive inquiry. Therefore, the PCIT's order invoking Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the case was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs. Following CBDT instructions and Supreme Court judgments, the Revenue was not expected to pursue the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed the owner of more than one residential property, making the exemption under Section 54F wrongly allowed. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the cash deposits. The contradictory explanations provided by the assessee before the lower authorities were also noted.

The Tribunal held that the purchase transaction was completed in 1997 when the agreement was made and consideration was paid. Therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) were not applicable to the assessment year 2015-16.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's adjournment request and without complying with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal issues raised by the assessee, including limitation and the applicability of Section 69A and 115BBE. The ex-parte order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and applied his mind to the facts presented during the assessment. The PCIT's revisionary order was deemed invalid as it lacked specific findings on the nature of inquiries that should have been conducted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. The case did not fall under any exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee's explanation for non-receipt of notices constituted a reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, which was dismissed for non-prosecution without deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT initiated revision on a wrong premise, as the deduction was claimed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and not Section 80P(2)(d). The AO had also made specific inquiries and the assessee had provided sufficient details during the assessment.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit set by the CBDT. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove that the amounts in the messages represented the assessee's real income. The messages pertained to partnership firm transactions that were already accounted for, thus the addition was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had subsequently submitted ample corroborative documentary evidence before the CIT(A), including bank statements and IT returns of partners, which justified the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO's failure to comment on the merits of this evidence in the remand report was also noted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had sufficient cash to explain the loans and that the cash receipts were advances for plot bookings, not taxable income in the current year. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that an order under Section 143(2) was passed during the appellate proceedings which had already considered and granted relief to the assessee on the same issue. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not right in confirming the addition.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry into the capital gains and property valuation. The assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn. For the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the transactions were sufficiently evidenced and offering the income again would amount to double taxation.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn. For the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the transactions were sufficiently evidenced and offering the income again would amount to double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry into the capital gains and property valuation. The assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 2,10,005/- as it was a reporting error by the auditor and the payment was made on time. However, the disallowance of Rs. 36,609/- for delayed payment of employee's PF contribution was upheld, following Supreme Court and ITAT precedents.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's adjournment request, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution paid late is valid, following Supreme Court decisions. However, the disallowance of employer's contribution paid late but within the due date for filing the return is not justified and requires further verification.

The tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) was valid, citing Supreme Court decisions. However, it accepted that some payments might have been made before the due dates, requiring verification.

The Tribunal held that as per Section 12A(1) and the identical provisions for Section 10(23C)(vi), there is no discretion for the competent authority to grant registration or approval with retrospective effect if the application is made on or after June 1, 2007. Therefore, the assessee's claim for retrospective effect was devoid of merit.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was granted registration under Section 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1999, it is eligible for exemption under Sections 11 & 12 of the Act. Consequently, the additions made were deemed defective.

The Tribunal held that as per Section 12A(1) and the identical provisions for Section 10(23C)(vi), there is no discretion for the competent authority to grant registration or approval with retrospective effect if the application is made on or after June 1, 2007. Therefore, the assessee's claim for retrospective effect was devoid of merit.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no error in allowing 30% depreciation on dumpers. The assessee was engaged in civil contracting and also in the business of plying dumpers on hire, with hire charges separately accounted for.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the applicability of Section 115BAA and the timely filing of Form 10-IC requires verification by the AO. For the ESI/PF contribution issue, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. and dismissed the assessee's claim.