ITAT Indore Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves exoneration from penalty, considering a similar case of a group company where the CIT(A) ruled that no penalty is leviable if individual receipts are less than Rs. 10 lakh. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of documents supporting this claim.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee was no longer willing to pursue it due to the acceptance of their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT failed to consider the evidence filed by the assessee, including the recipient's income computation, which showed the amount was taxed. The Tribunal also noted the second proviso to Section 40(a)(i) protects against disallowance if the payee has paid tax.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for not incorporating the Document Identification Number (DIN). The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid for want of DIN, making it deemed to have never been issued.

The Tribunal found that the AO made additions based on incorrect figures from the assessee's balance sheet. The assessee's representative successfully demonstrated these factual errors with reference to the same balance sheet.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition for excess stock, accepting the assessee's retraction. However, it dismissed the assessee's cross-objection regarding the higher tax rate on excess cash, finding the AO's action justified as the source of the cash was unexplained.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) was passed without giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. The assessee was unaware of the transition to the faceless regime.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the additions and allowing exemption under Section 11 without proper verification. Specifically, regarding the issue of interest-free advances to various entities under Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(2)(a) and 13(3), the Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) relied on the decision in CIT Vs. RKDF Education Society, the assessee's own submissions and the details of loans revealed that some entities (Dattatreya Enterprises and Shivam Builders) were not societies or trusts. The Tribunal also found that the argument that these amounts were for running hostels was a new point not tested at the lower level. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not sure about the nature and Section 12A registration status of other entities to whom loans were given. The Tribunal concluded that these aspects remained unverified at the lower level and that the CIT(A) had wrongly given a favorable verdict without sufficient material. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the AO for a detailed probe into each item of loan to ascertain the nature of entities, the purpose of loans, and whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the RKDF Education Society decision. The AO was directed to give proper opportunities to the assessee for explanations before passing a fresh order. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the additions and allowing exemption under Section 11 without proper verification. Specifically, regarding the issue of interest-free advances to various entities under Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(2)(a) and 13(3), the Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) relied on the decision in CIT Vs. RKDF Education Society, the assessee's own submissions and the details of loans revealed that some entities (Dattatreya Enterprises and Shivam Builders) were not societies or trusts. The Tribunal also found that the argument that these amounts were for running hostels was a new point not tested at the lower level. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not sure about the nature and Section 12A registration status of other entities to whom loans were given. The Tribunal concluded that these aspects remained unverified at the lower level and that the CIT(A) had wrongly given a favorable verdict without sufficient material. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the AO for a detailed probe into each item of loan to ascertain the nature of entities, the purpose of loans, and whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the RKDF Education Society decision. The AO was directed to give proper opportunities to the assessee for explanations before passing a fresh order. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the additions and allowing exemption under Section 11 without proper verification. Specifically, regarding the issue of interest-free advances to various entities under Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(2)(a) and 13(3), the Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) relied on the decision in CIT Vs. RKDF Education Society, the assessee's own submissions and the details of loans revealed that some entities (Dattatreya Enterprises and Shivam Builders) were not societies or trusts. The Tribunal also found that the argument that these amounts were for running hostels was a new point not tested at the lower level. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not sure about the nature and Section 12A registration status of other entities to whom loans were given. The Tribunal concluded that these aspects remained unverified at the lower level and that the CIT(A) had wrongly given a favorable verdict without sufficient material. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the AO for a detailed probe into each item of loan to ascertain the nature of entities, the purpose of loans, and whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the RKDF Education Society decision. The AO was directed to give proper opportunities to the assessee for explanations before passing a fresh order. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with one more opportunity of hearing, considering the circumstances and in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided documentary evidence to support their claim of working as a Bank Mitra and that the OD account was specifically for business correspondent activities. The AO and CIT(A) had not properly verified the records.

The Tribunal held that the alleged violations, such as non-payment of loans (which were pending before DRT), short TDS, delayed PF/ESIC payments, and non-charging of GST (due to exemption), did not constitute material non-compliance with laws relevant to the assessee's charitable objects.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessment order before confirming the penalty. Since this was not done, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not invalid despite the absence of specific issues for limited scrutiny, as it was issued within time and the assessee participated without objection. However, the PCIT's revisionary power is limited to the issues identified for limited scrutiny.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was identical to previous appeals where the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication. The nature of the transaction (discount vs. commission) and the principal-agent relationship were not properly examined by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to a lack of inquiry on two key issues: disallowance under Section 43B (for CST) and Section 40A(3) (for cash purchases). The Pr. CIT rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 to revise the assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF/ESI paid after the due date under respective laws, even if before the return filing due date, is not allowable as a deduction. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmat Services Private Limited.

The Tribunal held that the AO's remand report did not consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) also failed to consider this evidence.

The Tribunal held that non-incurrence of expenditure during the Covid-19 pandemic for distributing donated blankets cannot be a ground for rejection, especially for a newly formed society. It also found that issuing Form 10BE after provisional registration, even for earlier donations, is in accordance with the rules.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remanded the issues concerning payments to non-residents back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The issue of grossing up of TDS was not decided at present, pending the AO's decision.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remanded the issues concerning payments to non-residents back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The issue of grossing up of TDS was not decided at present, pending the AO's decision.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remanded the issues concerning payments to non-residents back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The issue of grossing up of TDS was not decided at present, pending the AO's decision.

The Tribunal held that non-incurrence of expenditure during the Covid-19 pandemic for distributing donated blankets cannot be a ground for rejection, especially for a newly formed society. It also found that issuing Form 10BE after provisional registration, even for earlier donations, is in accordance with the rules.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not maintain books of account, the penalty for not getting them audited under Section 271B is not justified. The AO had also dropped penalty proceedings under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books.

The ITAT set aside the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after proper verification of the documents and evidence produced by the assessee. The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) had effectively remanded the case to the AO for verification, which was considered appropriate given the circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the case was selected for limited scrutiny on specific issues, and the PCIT's grounds for revision were outside the scope of that limited scrutiny. The Tribunal also found that the AO had conducted due inquiry, and the PCIT's order lacked proper examination and findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESIC paid belatedly is now settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT. The Supreme Court held that such payments must be made on or before the due date for claiming deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly accepted the book results and deleted the AO's additions. The AO's rejection of books and subsequent additions were not supported by adverse evidence for the current year and merely followed previous year's orders.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly accepted the book results and deleted the AO's additions. The AO's rejection of books and subsequent additions were not supported by adverse evidence for the current year and merely followed previous year's orders.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly accepted the book results and deleted the AO's additions. The AO's rejection of books and subsequent additions were not supported by adverse evidence for the current year and merely followed previous year's orders.