ITAT Indore Judgments — May 2023

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the Pr. CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 as the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted due inquiry and taken a plausible view, making the assessment order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order without considering the AO's remand report and other relevant documents due to the migration from physical to faceless appeal proceedings. Therefore, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for the unsecured loans. The Tribunal found no reason to doubt the creditors and upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the grounds of appeal on merits, which is contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. The AO's disallowances were found to be ad-hoc and not based on proper verification, especially considering the assessee's suo-moto disallowances. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as the assessee had no exempt income.

The Tribunal found an apparent mistake in the CIT(A)'s order due to the mismatch between the appeal filed and the issues decided. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) denied the exemption on grounds different from the AO without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity to the assessee. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) as the appeal was not decided on merits. Therefore, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the pendency of other proceedings and reliance on legal advice constituted a sufficient cause. It held that the existence of the educational institution solely for educational purposes, not for profit, is the criterion for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad), not the society's overall objectives. The lower authorities erred by considering the society's existence and subsequent amendments to its bye-laws, which were irrelevant for the year under consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits and had dismissed it summarily. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with an appropriate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had accepted vague and unsupported explanations from the assessee regarding 83 creditors. However, it agreed that if repayments were made in the same year, addition might not be justified. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO for verification of loans taken and repayments made for these 83 creditors.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to verify the evidence filed by the assessee regarding the source of deposits, which were claimed to be from past savings and bank withdrawals.

The Tribunal noted divergent High Court judgments on whether discounts to distributors are commission. Since the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the specific terms of the distributor agreements and the assessee's accounting treatment, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted divergent High Court judgments on whether discounts to distributors are commission. Since the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the specific terms of the distributor agreements and the assessee's accounting treatment, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) did not properly examine the agreements between the assessee and distributors or the accounting treatment of these transactions. These aspects are crucial for determining if the discount was commission. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted divergent High Court judgments on whether discounts to distributors are commission. Since the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the specific terms of the distributor agreements and the assessee's accounting treatment, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted divergent High Court judgments on whether discounts to distributors are commission. Since the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the specific terms of the distributor agreements and the assessee's accounting treatment, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted divergent High Court judgments on whether discounts to distributors are commission. Since the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the specific terms of the distributor agreements and the assessee's accounting treatment, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted divergent High Court judgments on whether discounts to distributors are commission. Since the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the specific terms of the distributor agreements and the assessee's accounting treatment, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted divergent High Court judgments on whether discounts to distributors are commission. Since the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the specific terms of the distributor agreements and the assessee's accounting treatment, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted divergent High Court judgments on whether discounts to distributors are commission. Since the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the specific terms of the distributor agreements and the assessee's accounting treatment, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted divergent High Court judgments on whether discounts to distributors are commission. Since the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the specific terms of the distributor agreements and the assessee's accounting treatment, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted divergent High Court judgments on whether discounts to distributors are commission. Since the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the specific terms of the distributor agreements and the assessee's accounting treatment, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted divergent High Court judgments on whether discounts to distributors are commission. Since the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the specific terms of the distributor agreements and the assessee's accounting treatment, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted divergent High Court judgments on whether discounts to distributors are commission. Since the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the specific terms of the distributor agreements and the assessee's accounting treatment, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted divergent High Court judgments on whether discounts to distributors are commission. Since the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the specific terms of the distributor agreements and the assessee's accounting treatment, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted divergent High Court judgments on whether discounts to distributors are commission. Since the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the specific terms of the distributor agreements and the assessee's accounting treatment, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO violated Section 142(3) by not providing the statement of Shri Anuj Agarwal to the assessee before utilizing it for assessment. The assessment order was set aside and the case was remanded to the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had noted the mismatch in submissions but did not provide a further opportunity to correct it. The notice issued by the CIT(A) also did not prompt the assessee to file correct submissions regarding the penalty.

The Tribunal noted divergent High Court judgments on whether discounts to distributors are commission. Since the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the specific terms of the distributor agreements and the assessee's accounting treatment, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) did not properly examine the agreements between the assessee and distributors or the accounting treatment of these transactions. These aspects are crucial for determining if the discount was commission. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) was illegal and void-ab-initio because the pending reassessment proceedings abated due to a search and seizure action under Section 132(1) initiated subsequently. Consequently, other grounds of appeal became infructuous.

The Tribunal accepted the cash gifts from the father and mother, and the cash withdrawal from the assessee's own account as genuine sources. However, the cash gift claimed from the grandmother was not accepted due to lack of corroborative evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance and that the CIT(Appeals) order was passed ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) passed the order ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and non-filing of submissions. Considering the assessee's claim of not receiving notices properly, the Tribunal set aside the order.

The Tribunal held that the penalties were not sustainable as the diaries were seized from a third party, and no presumption could be drawn against the assessee. Furthermore, the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries or corroborate the entries with any evidence from the assessee's side.

The Tribunal held that the penalties were not sustainable as the diaries were seized from a third party, and no presumption could be drawn against the assessee. Furthermore, the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries and corroborate the alleged transactions.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries from the lenders and that the seized documents did not conclusively prove cash loan transactions. The Tribunal also referred to a CBDT circular suggesting these provisions apply when loan sources are used to explain unexplained assets.

The Tribunal held that the penalties were not sustainable as the diaries were seized from a third party, and no presumption could be drawn against the assessee. Furthermore, the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries or corroborate the entries with evidence from the assessee's side.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CPC was justified, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The amendment to section 143(1)(a)(iv) by the Finance Act 2021 was not applicable for the year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries from the lenders and that the seized documents did not conclusively prove cash loan transactions. The Tribunal also referred to a CBDT circular suggesting these provisions apply when loan sources are used to explain unexplained assets.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries from the lenders and that the seized documents did not conclusively prove cash loan transactions. The Tribunal also referred to a CBDT circular suggesting these provisions apply when loan sources are used to explain unexplained assets.

The Tribunal held that the penalties were not sustainable as the diaries were seized from a third party, and no presumption could be drawn against the assessee. Furthermore, the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries or corroborate the alleged transactions.

The Tribunal found that while the onus was on the assessee to explain the seized document, the AO's order did not show adequate consideration of the assessee's submissions. The AO also failed to confront Raju Bhai to ascertain the truth.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries from the lenders and that the seized documents did not conclusively prove cash loan transactions. The Tribunal also referred to a CBDT circular suggesting these provisions apply when loan sources are used to explain unexplained assets.

The Tribunal held that the penalties were not sustainable as the diaries were seized from a third party, and no presumption could be drawn against the assessee. Furthermore, the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries or corroborate the entries with any evidence from the assessee's side.

The Tribunal held that the penalties were not sustainable as the diaries were seized from a third party, and no presumption could be drawn against the assessee. Furthermore, the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries or corroborate the entries with any evidence from the assessee's side.

The Tribunal held that the penalties were not sustainable as the diaries were seized from a third party, and no presumption could be drawn against the assessee. Furthermore, the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries or corroborate the entries with any evidence from the assessee's side.