ITAT Indore Judgments — October 2023

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by withdrawals from other bank accounts and deleted the addition. Regarding the mutual fund investment, the addition was restricted to the actual gain of Rs. 7,041. The penalty was deleted as the additions on which it was based were not sustained.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) confirming the additions made by the AO. The assessee failed to discharge the onus to explain the source of cash credit and investment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the deletion of additions. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for development expenses and proved the genuineness of unsecured loans, including identity and creditworthiness, which were also accepted in the preceding year.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by withdrawals from other bank accounts and deleted the addition. Regarding the mutual fund investment, the addition was restricted to the actual gain of Rs. 7,041. The penalty was deleted as the additions on which it was based were not sustained.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere with the estimation of net profit at 3.5%. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's business was in its first year and past data was unavailable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was the exclusive owner of the property sold, and the investment in bonds was made within the prescribed time. Therefore, the full exemption under Section 54EC was allowable.

The Tribunal held that a loan given by an assessee, even if considered bogus, cannot be treated as income in the hands of the giver. The Tribunal also found that the source of the cash deposit used for the loan was sufficiently explained.

The Tribunal held that since the addition made in the original assessment was deleted by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal, any enhancement of this addition in reassessment proceedings would not survive. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that while a registered title deed is generally required for transfer of immovable property, a new development regarding the invalidity of the exchanged land emerged. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for verification of this new development.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely because he disagrees with the Assessing Officer's view, especially when the AO had conducted an inquiry and taken a possible view. The revisionary order was found unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the addition made in the original assessment was deleted by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal, any enhancement of this addition in reassessment proceedings would not survive. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of commission income was not sustainable without proper material. Regarding foreign travel expenses, the Tribunal found that the assessee provided a confirmation and directed the AO to re-adjudicate after further inquiry.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted additional evidence and also claimed a lack of proper opportunity. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12 for the preceding assessment years based on the proviso to Section 12A(2), as the registration was eventually granted and the objects and activities remained the same. However, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the conditions and computation of exemption.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, and there was a communication gap regarding the assessee's submissions. The penalty appeal was also set aside as it was based on a quantum addition that was already remanded.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the order was set aside.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause and the principle of 'sufficient cause'. The tribunal also set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to properly verify and examine the documents submitted by the assessee regarding interest payment and provide adequate opportunities of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12 for the preceding assessment years based on the proviso to Section 12A(2), as the registration was eventually granted and the objects and activities remained the same. However, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the conditions and computation of exemption.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim regarding the sale of the plot and the source of funds was not substantiated with proper documentation. The lower authorities' rejection of the explanation for the Rs. 14,25,000/- was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the claim for exemption under Section 11 was not allowable due to lack of Section 12A registration. However, it remanded the issue of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the definition of 'substantially financed' by the government.

The Tribunal held that the issue of apportionment of salary expenses for the construction division has been consistently decided in favour of the assessee by the CIT(A) and ITAT in earlier years. Since the Revenue could not show any change in facts or law, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without considering the nature of the trust's objects and activities, solely for want of details. It was also noted that the CIT(E) could have granted another opportunity for the assessee to submit the required documents.

The Tribunal held that Section 80G(5)(i) only requires the assessee to be entitled to exemption under Sections 11/12. Since the assessee had valid registration under Section 12A and was granted exemption, the CIT(E)'s rejection was not valid.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without considering the nature of the trust's objects and activities, solely for want of details. It was also noted that the CIT(E) could have granted another opportunity for the assessee to submit the required documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the AO. This was done to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the source of the deposits with supporting documents, as the previous authorities had passed orders due to non-compliance.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, and there was a communication gap regarding the assessee's submissions. The penalty appeal was also set aside as it was based on a quantum addition that was already remanded.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding a reasonable cause. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to represent their case.

The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) does not provide for rounding off or consider the concept of materiality. The plain language of the section requires a direct comparison of the issue price and fair market value.

The Tribunal held that neither Section 43CA nor Section 50C of the Income-tax Act were applicable. Section 43CA was not applicable for the assessment year in question, and Section 50C applies only to capital gains, not business income.

The Tribunal found that the AO had assessed business receipts as turnover, not just commission. Since the quantum appeal regarding the assessee's turnover was still pending, the Tribunal decided to remand the penalty appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence, including Mandi certificates, Khasra documents, and ledger accounts, to prove the genuineness of the trade creditors and the subsequent payments made to them. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the exact reason for the disallowance (wrong form or delayed audit report) needed to be ascertained. It also highlighted the need to verify the dates related to the audit report and consider judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order under Section 154 was not a rectification of a mistake apparent from the record but rather a reassessment in the guise of rectification. The issues were debatable and had already been examined during the scrutiny assessment.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce the necessary documents and information for examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on payments to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, as its income is exempt under Section 10(26AAB) and supported by CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on payments to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, as the Samiti's income is exempt under Section 10(26AAB) and supported by CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The assessee will be given an opportunity to be heard and submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without complying with Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. Due to agreement between parties, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that credit for TCS should be allowed to the de-facto recipient of the income, provided there is no double claim. The matter was set aside to the AO to verify the transactions and obtain an undertaking from license holders that they have not claimed the TCS credit.

The Tribunal held that credit for TCS should be allowed to the de-facto recipient of the income, provided there is no double claim. The matter was set aside to the AO to verify the transactions and obtain an undertaking from license holders that they have not claimed the TCS credit.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the application without discussing the trust's objects and activities. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found uncertainty regarding the exact status of the tax audit report filing from the lower authorities' orders. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the filing status and adjudicate the penalty accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the AO committed a factual mistake by including opening and closing balances of inventory instead of considering only the provisions made by the assessee during the year. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce supporting evidence to explain the cash deposits and capital investment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS under Section 194-IA as his individual share of consideration was below the threshold limit. The obligation for TDS deduction is to be considered with reference to each individual transferee's payment.

The Tribunal held that Rule 8D was not applicable for AY 2007-08. However, it found that a reasonable disallowance under Section 14A was attracted de hors Rule 8D. Given the persistent nature of this issue in the assessee's own case across various years, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The ITAT, considering the principles of natural justice and fair play, remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to participate in future hearings and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal found procedural irregularities in the assessment and appellate proceedings, including the AO's failure to submit a remand report and the conflicting claims regarding opportunities provided to the assessee. It also noted the submission that other co-owners received the exemption without objection.