ITAT Indore Judgments — April 2023

The Tribunal held that the twin reasons assigned by the Ld. CIT(E) for rejecting the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12AB and Section 80G were not valid. Regarding the lease deed, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that while non-registration might be a violation of the Registration Act, 1908, it was not material to the achievement of the assessee's objects. The assessee was carrying out its activities fully and validly without the registration of the lease deed. Concerning the CSR notification, the Tribunal found that the assessee was covered by the proviso to Rule 4(2)(a) of the Companies (Corporate Social Responsibility Policy) Rules, 2014. The contributions received were for projects approved prior to April 1, 2021. An expert opinion confirmed that for accepting these amounts, the assessee was not required to take CSRIN as the projects were approved before the amended rule came into effect. Therefore, there was no violation of the notification. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the orders dated September 27, 2022, passed by the Ld. CIT(E) and directed the Ld. CIT(E) to grant registration to the assessee under Section 12AB and Section 80G.

The Tribunal held that the twin reasons assigned by the Ld. CIT(E) for rejecting the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12AB and Section 80G were not valid. Regarding the lease deed, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that while non-registration might be a violation of the Registration Act, 1908, it was not material to the achievement of the assessee's objects. The assessee was carrying out its activities fully and validly without the registration of the lease deed. Concerning the CSR notification, the Tribunal found that the assessee was covered by the proviso to Rule 4(2)(a) of the Companies (Corporate Social Responsibility Policy) Rules, 2014. The contributions received were for projects approved prior to April 1, 2021. An expert opinion confirmed that for accepting these amounts, the assessee was not required to take CSRIN as the projects were approved before the amended rule came into effect. Therefore, there was no violation of the notification. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the orders dated September 27, 2022, passed by the Ld. CIT(E) and directed the Ld. CIT(E) to grant registration to the assessee under Section 12AB and Section 80G.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the purchase and sale of shares. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the transactions, including the holding period and payment methods, and upheld the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that provisions for standard assets, made as per RBI guidelines, are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(viia). However, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO to verify if the total deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(viia) was within the prescribed limits.

The Tribunal held that late payment of employee contributions to PF and ESIC, even if made before the return filing date, is not an allowable deduction. The disallowance made under Section 143(1) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously accepted the genuineness of transactions with these companies, and the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESIC paid after the due date under PF/ESI laws is not an allowable deduction. The revenue authorities were justified in disallowing the same, and the action of the lower authorities in confirming the disallowance is upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer overlooked the fact that money was returned by the assessee company and made an addition of the total amount received. The Tribunal found that the AO did not act judiciously and discriminated while making the addition.

The Tribunal found that the AO's order and the assessee's submissions were unclear regarding the exact nature of the time-barred interest claim, leading to a remand. The ground regarding the provision for book-balancing was dismissed as no addition was made by the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO's reallocation of expenses was arbitrary and lacked cogent material. The Tribunal noted that the product mix and operations of the DTA and SEZ units were different, and separate books of accounts were maintained and audited.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's non-compliance was due to significant personal and medical issues, supported by an affidavit. Considering principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matters back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's non-compliance was due to significant personal and medical issues, supported by an affidavit. Considering principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matters back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the non-filing of the audit report along with the return of income is a procedural defect, not a fatal one, especially when the report was available and filed before the processing stage. The assessee should not be denied exemption for a bona fide error.

The Tribunal held that the explanation of the assessee regarding the sale consideration could not be rejected without proper verification and inquiry, especially without examining the buyers. Therefore, the matter requires fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's return of income for the previous year, which declared advances receivable of Rs. 7,00,000/-, was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of immovable property is completed upon registration of the title deed as per the Registration Act, 1908, especially after the 2001 amendment. Therefore, the sale deed registered on February 22, 2010, signifies the completion of the transfer in the year under consideration, not the earlier date of the agreement. Consequently, Ground-I was decided against the assessee. Regarding Ground-II, the Tribunal found that if the date of registration is not in dispute, additional evidence would not achieve anything, thus dismissing the ground. For Ground-III, concerning Section 50C, the Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) failed to refer the matter to the DVO when the assessee disputed the deemed sale consideration. It also acknowledged the proviso to Section 50C(1) allowing stamp duty valuation on the agreement date if consideration is paid by account payee cheques. Thus, the issue of fair market value determination was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication, including reference to the DVO. For Ground-IV, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide any details or evidence for the claimed Rs. 3 lakh legal expenses, making the AO's estimation of Rs. 50,000 reasonable and proper. Therefore, this ground was dismissed. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not have the authority to levy late fee under Section 234E in intimations under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A was effective from that date. Therefore, the levy was illegal.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not have the authority to levy late fee under Section 234E in intimations under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A was effective from that date. Therefore, the levy was illegal.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not have the authority to levy late fee under Section 234E in intimations under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A was effective from that date. Therefore, the levy was illegal.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not have the authority to levy late fee under Section 234E in intimations under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A was effective from that date. Therefore, the levy was illegal.

The Tribunal held that the penalty appeal is inextricably linked to the quantum appeal. Therefore, the penalty appeal should also be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the outcome of the quantum appeal is decided.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any valid explanation or substantiation for disputing the Stamp Authority's valuation before the lower authorities. Therefore, the addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present her case.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not have the authority to levy late fee under Section 234E in intimations under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A was effective from that date. Therefore, the levy was illegal.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the first appeal was condonable due to a reasonable cause, as the assessee was awaiting a rectification application. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that the benefit of exemption under Section 11/12 should not be denied solely due to the procedural lapse of belatedly filing the audit report, especially since the assessment was not final.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities were not justified in disallowing the Section 10A deduction based on a reporting mistake in the ITR. The assessee had consistently claimed and provided evidence for the deduction, which was allowed in previous assessments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's status as a farmer and lack of awareness of newer technologies like email. It was held that there was a reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the notices, as per Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries regarding the jewellery purchase and the assessee provided thorough explanations. The issue of cash deposits was also found to be unrelated to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, the revision order was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that most of the issues raised by the Pr. CIT were outside the scope of the original scrutiny assessment. For the issues within scope, it was found that either the disallowance was revenue-neutral or the AO had followed a permissible view, thus the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate its claims regarding expenses and cash payments. The inconsistent stands taken by the assessee before lower authorities regarding the cash payment under Section 40A(3) were not supported by evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was not in accordance with the law as it did not adjudicate the grounds on merits. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the gift deed was on plain paper and not signed by the assessee, and the valuation report lacked item-wise details. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for examination of the gift deed witnesses and the valuer.

The Tribunal held that the rectification order was not time-barred as it was passed within the prescribed period from the intimation date. However, the Tribunal found that the original disallowance of Rs. 2,68,197/- was reasonable and consistent with past practices, quashing the additional disallowance made through rectification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's reasonable cause. The Tribunal also decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the revision proceedings initiated by the CIT(E) were invalid as there was no escaped income and no error in the assessment order prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal quashed the revision order.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the disputed matters was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs. Following CBDT instructions, the revenue was not expected to pursue these appeals.

The Tribunal held that the issue is settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., which ruled that employees' contributions to PF and ESIC must be deposited on or before the due dates specified by the respective acts to be eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. settles the issue against the assessee. Late deposit of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF, even before the return filing due date, leads to disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the disputed matters was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs. Following CBDT instructions, the revenue was not expected to pursue these appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. settles the issue against the assessee. Late deposit of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF, even before the return filing due date, leads to disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not made any tangible inquiry or verification regarding the impugned expenses. Therefore, the assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as per Explanation 2 to Section 263.

The ITAT condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the revision order was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 263(2) of the Act. Since the issue raised in the second revision was not part of the first revision or the subsequent assessment order, the limitation period should be reckoned from the date of the original assessment.

The ITAT noted that a scrutiny assessment order u/s 143(3) for the same assessment year was subsequently passed. The tribunal held that the order passed u/s 143(1) merged with the scrutiny assessment order u/s 143(3), rendering the appeal against the 143(1) order infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the issue of exempt income and its nexus with expenditure under Section 14A was not properly demonstrated by the assessee. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal found that the issue of exempt income and its nexus with expenditure under Section 14A was not properly demonstrated by the assessee. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that since CPRI and ERDA are autonomous societies entitled to exemption under Section 10(21) of the Act, there is no taxability on their income. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held in default for not deducting TDS.

The Tribunal held that since CPRI and ERDA are autonomous societies entitled to exemption under Section 10(21) of the Act, there is no taxability on their income. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held in default for not deducting TDS.

The Tribunal held that since CPRI and ERDA are autonomous societies entitled to exemption under Section 10(21) of the Act, there is no taxability on their income. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held in default for not deducting TDS.