ITAT Indore Judgments — July 2023

The Tribunal decided that the deletion of additions related to unsecured loans and salary expenditure by the CIT(A) was incorrect and restored these issues to the AO for fresh consideration. However, the issue regarding disallowance under Section 40A(3) was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that when a cash payment is made in peculiar circumstances to settle a dispute pending before a court, and the genuineness of the transaction and identity of the payee are not in dispute, disallowance under Section 40A(3) is not sustainable. The Tribunal also deleted ad-hoc disallowances on directors' salary and telephone/travel/fuel expenses.

The Tribunal held that when a cash payment is made in peculiar circumstances to settle a dispute pending before a court, and the genuineness of the transaction and identity of the payee are not in dispute, disallowance under Section 40A(3) is not sustainable. The Tribunal also deleted ad-hoc disallowances on directors' salary and telephone/travel/fuel expenses.

The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of Section 80P deduction for belated filing was not justified under Section 143(1) at the time of assessment. The amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) that would have allowed such disallowance was effective from a later date.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary action suffered from a jurisdictional deficit because the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated the revision by proposing it and preparing draft notices, rather than the PCIT independently calling for and examining the records. Consequently, the revision orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary action suffered from a jurisdictional deficit because the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated the revision by proposing it and preparing draft notices, rather than the PCIT independently calling for and examining the records. Consequently, the revision orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary action suffered from a jurisdictional deficit because the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated the revision by proposing it and preparing draft notices, rather than the PCIT independently calling for and examining the records. Consequently, the revision orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary action suffered from a jurisdictional deficit because the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated the revision by proposing it and preparing draft notices, rather than the PCIT independently calling for and examining the records. Consequently, the revision orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that when a cash payment is made in peculiar circumstances to settle a dispute pending before a court, and the genuineness of the transaction and identity of the payee are not in dispute, disallowance under Section 40A(3) is not sustainable. The Tribunal also deleted ad-hoc disallowances on directors' salary and telephone/travel/fuel expenses.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking revisionary action for any of the issues raised. The assessment order was found to be valid, and the revisionary order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of shares at face value by an amalgamated company (in a cited precedent, which the Tribunal found applicable to the demerger situation) to the shareholders of the amalgamating company, pursuant to a court-sanctioned scheme of amalgamation/demerger, does not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 56(2)(viib). The object of Section 56(2)(viib) is to tax unjustified premiums charged on the issue of shares, which is not the case here. The Tribunal also considered the scheme of the Act, noting that Section 47(vii) provides for the non-recognition of transfer of shares in certain amalgamation scenarios, implying a different treatment for such transactions compared to a bare issue of shares contemplated by Section 56(2)(viib). The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s conclusion that Section 56(2)(viib) was inapplicable. The addition of Rs. 3,92,20,30,008/- made by the AO was deleted. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that when a cash payment is made in peculiar circumstances to settle a dispute pending before a court, and the genuineness of the transaction and identity of the payee are not in dispute, disallowance under Section 40A(3) is not sustainable. The Tribunal also deleted ad-hoc disallowances on directors' salary and telephone/travel/fuel expenses.

The Tribunal held that when a cash payment is made in peculiar circumstances to settle a dispute pending before a court, and the genuineness of the transaction and identity of the payee are not in dispute, disallowance under Section 40A(3) is not sustainable. The Tribunal also deleted ad-hoc disallowances on directors' salary and telephone/travel/fuel expenses.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It noted that identical disallowances in prior years were deleted by the CIT(A) and ITAT, and the department's appeal was pending.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking ex-parte order without examining the assessee's explanation and evidence regarding the source of deposits. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) order was not in compliance with Section 250(6) and deserved to be set aside. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT passed the revision order without providing a proper and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Pr. CIT issued the show cause notice and passed the order within a short period, and the service was effected through affixture.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, as Karta of the HUF, provided an undertaking to withdraw the ground related to the capital gain not belonging to any other person in the HUF's appeal. Consequently, the revision order by the Pr. CIT was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly explained the source of Rs. 8,00,000/- as recovery from a debtor in demonetized currency, supported by documentary evidence of prior transactions and court proceedings. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. The disallowance was restricted to the amount of dividend income exempt under Section 10(34). The AO was directed to proceed as per law for recovery given the liquidation process.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing necessary documentation for the loans. The AO's doubts about the creditworthiness of the lenders were not sufficiently supported by evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO). This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to present evidence explaining the cash deposits, adhering to principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that three out of the four issues raised by the PCIT had become infructuous as the AO had made necessary verifications in a subsequent order. However, one issue regarding non-moving creditors was found to be partly valid, justifying the PCIT's revisionary action to that extent.

The Tribunal held that a two-day delay in EPF payment and a one-day delay in ESIC payment were beyond the assessee's control due to website issues and holidays, and thus the additions for these amounts were deleted. However, a further delay in ESIC payment for June 2017 was sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated her claim of opening cash balance with supporting evidence of prior withdrawals. The rejection of this claim by the CIT(A) was based on presumption without tangible material. The Tribunal also found that the remaining deposits were explained by prior withdrawals from the bank.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had made a plea for admission of additional evidence, which was not considered by the CIT(A) due to the absence of a formal application. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for verification and consideration of the additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that since the total income declared by the assessee was Nil and the assessed income was also Nil, there was no variation. Consequently, the conditions for imposing penalty under Section 270A were not met.

The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was due to a reasonable cause, considering the initial phase of online assessments and the fact that notices were sent to the counsel's ID. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous case decided by the Tribunal and pending before the High Court. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply the final decision of the High Court to these appeals.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO. The AO is to examine the additional evidence filed by the assessee and decide the claim of deduction after providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous case decided by the Tribunal and pending before the High Court. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply the final decision of the High Court to these appeals.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the inordinate delay to be vague and not a reasonable cause. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had previously engaged a tax advisor and filed appeals, indicating awareness of proceedings. Therefore, the delay was not condoned.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous case decided by the Tribunal and pending before the High Court. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply the final decision of the High Court to these appeals.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous case decided by the Tribunal and pending before the High Court. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply the final decision of the High Court to these appeals.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous case decided by the Tribunal and pending before the High Court. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply the final decision of the High Court to these appeals.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous case decided by the Tribunal and pending before the High Court. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply the final decision of the High Court to these appeals.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous case decided by the Tribunal and pending before the High Court. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply the final decision of the High Court to these appeals.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous case decided by the Tribunal and pending before the High Court. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply the final decision of the High Court to these appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal became infructuous as the AO, in a de novo assessment as directed by the PCIT, again allowed the exemption under Section 54F, albeit with a reduced quantum due to a calculation error. Therefore, no grievance subsisted for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that penalty under sections 271D and 271E cannot be levied in the absence of regular assessment proceedings initiated against the assessee. The penalty was quashed as not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that penalty under sections 271D and 271E cannot be levied in the absence of regular assessment proceedings initiated against the assessee. The penalty was quashed as not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that penalty under sections 271D and 271E cannot be levied in the absence of regular assessment proceedings initiated against the assessee. The penalty was quashed as not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed the order without considering the assessee's adjournment applications. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)-NFAC did not consider the remand report, which recommended considering the additional evidence. Due to a potential communication lapse between different CIT(A) offices, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 147 was valid, citing a Supreme Court judgment. However, regarding the addition, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the entries and therefore set aside the order and remanded the issue to the AO.

The Tribunal found that the appeal for AY 2013-14 was filed electronically within the extended time granted by the CIT(A). For AY 2014-15, the assessee had reasons for non-appearance. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside.

The Tribunal found that the appeal for AY 2013-14 was filed electronically within the extended time granted by the CIT(A). For AY 2014-15, the assessee had reasons for non-appearance. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside.

The Tribunal found that there was a mistake in the Form 35 filed by the assessee, which led to the CIT(A)'s dismissal. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to grant the assessee an opportunity to rectify the mistake.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's personal circumstances and the principle of substantial justice. The issue of disallowance of interest expenses was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication due to lack of proper working by the AO. The ground regarding withdrawal of deductions was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock found was part of the business stock and should be treated as business income, not unexplained investment. However, the excess cash was considered income from an unexplainable source, attracting Section 69A.