ITAT Indore Judgments — May 2023

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 admitted the additional ground, holding that the assessment order was passed without valid jurisdiction as no notice under Section 143(2) was issued within the prescribed time. Consequently, the assessment order and all consequent proceedings were quashed.

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, no corroborative evidence or inquiries were made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of unexplained cash as the assessee provided a satisfactory explanation supported by the firm's cash-book. Regarding the on-money payments, the Tribunal noted that substantive additions were deleted by a coordinate bench, making the protective additions unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the bank account was a business cash-credit account and the deposits were part of the declared business turnover. Therefore, no separate addition for the cash deposits was warranted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the Deferred Tax Liability, when materialized and recoverable from beneficiaries as per CERC regulations, forms part of the revenue from operations and is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal on other expenditure disallowances.

The Tribunal confirmed additions made in the hands of the husband for unexplained investments in plots and insurance policies. However, protective additions made in the wife's hands were deleted.

The Tribunal confirmed additions made in the hands of the husband for unexplained investments in plots and insurance policies. However, protective additions made in the wife's hands were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not extrapolate 'on-money' receipts from earlier assessment years (pre-search) to the current assessment year (post-search) without any specific incriminating material for the latter period. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the Deferred Tax Liability, when materialized and recoverable from beneficiaries as per CERC regulations, forms part of the revenue from operations and is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal on other expenditure disallowances.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's objections to the DVO's report were not adequately addressed by the CIT(A), remanding the issue for fresh adjudication. The claim for depreciation on the added cost was also remanded to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) orders were passed ex-parte without giving the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) orders were passed ex-parte without giving the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) orders were passed ex-parte without giving the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) orders were passed ex-parte without giving the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) orders were passed ex-parte without giving the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the cash found was explained by the cash book balance and directed the AO to allow depreciation on extra construction costs. However, it dismissed the assessee's claim regarding a document showing sales as expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the liability was not ceased to exist as it was discharged by the assessee through account payee cheques. Therefore, Section 41(1) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order is invalid and liable to be quashed because the Assessing Officer failed to supply the complete reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to the assessee. This failure violates principles of natural justice and established legal precedents.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC disallowing the deduction claimed under Section 80P while processing the return under Section 143(1) is not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v), which allows for disallowance of deductions for late filing of returns, was effective from April 1, 2021, and thus not applicable to the Assessment Year 2018-19. Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to the Explanation to Section 143(1)(a)(ii), stating that denial of deduction for late filing of return does not fall within the scope of an 'apparent incorrect claim'. The Tribunal also cited judicial precedents, including decisions from the Kerala High Court and other ITAT benches, which held that returns filed beyond the due date but within the permissible limits under Section 139(4) or in response to notices can be accepted for claiming deductions, provided further proceedings are pending. Following the principle of consistency and the cited judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal deleted the adjustment made by the CPC and allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80P.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the case was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the issues raised were either outside the scope of limited scrutiny or had already been adequately examined by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also noted a violation of natural justice in the PCIT's proceedings.

The Tribunal restored the issues concerning 'on money' payments for land purchases to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had made observations without obtaining comments from the AO and had misconstrued facts regarding the utilization of cash received by sellers.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee's reasonable cause for not appearing before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)'s order was found to be non-speaking and passed ex-parte without proper opportunity.

The Tribunal held that making donations to other trusts to further charitable objects is a valid charitable activity. It also found that the donations were not made from accumulated income but from current income, thus not violating Section 11(2).

The Tribunal noted that the valuation report was not considered by the AO or CIT(A). Therefore, the issue of cost of acquisition was set aside to the AO for adjudication after considering the valuation report and sale instances.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to a complete lack of inquiry on the issue of Section 54 deduction. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order setting aside the assessment and remanding the matter to the AO was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the discount constituted commission was debatable, with differing High Court judgments and pending Supreme Court appeals. Therefore, the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-deduction under Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the discount allowed to distributors constitutes commission is debatable, with differing High Court judgments. Therefore, the assessee had a bona fide belief and reasonable cause for non-deduction, making the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the discount allowed to distributors constitutes commission is debatable, with differing High Court judgments. Therefore, the assessee had a bona fide belief and reasonable cause for non-deduction, making the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the discount constituted commission was debatable, with differing High Court judgments and pending Supreme Court appeals. Therefore, the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-deduction under Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the discount constituted commission was debatable, with differing High Court judgments and pending Supreme Court appeals. Therefore, the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-deduction under Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the discount constituted commission was debatable, with differing High Court judgments and pending Supreme Court appeals. Therefore, the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-deduction under Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the discount allowed to distributors constitutes commission is debatable, with differing High Court judgments. Due to this debatable nature and the assessee's bona fide belief, there was a reasonable cause for non-deduction, thus invoking Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the discount allowed to distributors constitutes commission is debatable, with differing High Court judgments. Therefore, the assessee had a bona fide belief and reasonable cause for non-deduction, making the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal summarily due to non-submission of reply and documentary evidence. Considering the long gap between notices and the possibility of confusion, the assessee was granted one more opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to conduct an inquiry regarding the allowability of the Section 54 deduction rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the revision order by the Pr. CIT, setting aside the assessment for re-examination, was upheld.