ITAT Indore Judgments — December 2023

The tribunal held that appellate authorities can allow claims not made via revised returns, unlike the AO. However, due to contradictions regarding the subsidy's nature and timing, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without verifying the facts regarding the search and seizure action. The Tribunal found that the assessment proceedings had indeed abated due to the search conducted during the pendency of the assessment.

The ITAT, considering the assessee's senior citizen status and lack of mala fide intention, held that the belated filing of Form 10E (which was filed before the first appeal) should not be a ground to deny the substantive relief under Section 89. The tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO to verify the subsequently filed Form 10E and allow the eligible relief.

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 an opportunity to present her case and supporting evidence, as the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 as there was a complete lack of inquiry by the AO on the applicability of Section 115BBE. The assessment order was set aside on this limited issue, directing the AO to reframe the assessment after proper inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report is a procedural defect and should not lead to the denial of exemption under Section 11/12, especially when the report was eventually filed. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to establish that the assessee incurred any expenditure for earning exempted income. The disallowance was arbitrary as no working was provided, and the interest expense from business books could not be the basis for disallowance on personal investments.

The Tribunal held that while appellate authorities can entertain claims for the first time, the specific issue of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) required further verification. This included determining the income eligible for exemption and the impact of Section 13(3) violations on the claim, thus remanding the matter to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide reasons for the delay beyond the period extended by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the loan by relying on the lender's statement and bank records. Therefore, there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and the penalty was not imposable.

The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the AO should have rectified the order under Section 154. The ITAT found no grievance for the revenue and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of taxation of this amount in the hands of M/s Jagannath was still pending before the CIT(A). Therefore, to avoid potential double taxation and to allow for a proper appreciation of facts and law, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish a direct nexus between interest-bearing loans and interest-free advances. It also noted that additions for suppressed receipts were based on presumption and conjecture, not concrete evidence, and that previous similar additions had been deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish a direct nexus between interest-bearing loans and interest-free advances. It also noted that additions for suppressed receipts were based on presumption and conjecture, not concrete evidence, and that previous similar additions had been deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish a direct nexus between interest-bearing loans and interest-free advances. It also noted that additions for suppressed receipts were based on presumption and conjecture, not concrete evidence, and that previous similar additions had been deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish a direct nexus between interest-bearing loans and interest-free advances. It also noted that additions for suppressed receipts were based on presumption and conjecture, not concrete evidence, and that previous similar additions had been deleted.

The Tribunal held that the clause allowing loans was qualified by the requirement that loans must be for charitable purposes, and the trust had not factually made any such loans. The Tribunal also found that other objected-to objects were not a bar, especially in light of amendments and judicial precedents. Consequently, the CIT(E) was directed to grant the registration and approval.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock found during the survey was part of the assessee's business stock and represented undisclosed business income. Therefore, it should be taxed as business income and not as unexplained investment under Section 69B, making Section 115BBE inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in revising the assessment order. The assessee failed to substantiate agricultural activities and the purchase of new lands within the prescribed period and through valid documentation, making the original assessment erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the clause allowing loans was qualified by the requirement that loans must be for charitable purposes, and the trust had not factually made any such loans. The Tribunal also found that other objected-to objects were not a bar, especially in light of amendments and judicial precedents. Consequently, the CIT(E) was directed to grant the registration and approval.

The Tribunal held that the grant-in-aid was received for the purpose of setting up or expanding an existing unit, making it a capital receipt. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal found that most of the discrepancies pointed out by the AO were not valid, except for a minor difference of Rs. 952/-. Therefore, the addition was upheld only to the extent of Rs. 952/-.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeals. It ruled that the reference to the DVO was invalid because the AO had not rejected the assessee's books of account, which was a prerequisite under Section 142A at the relevant time.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that a reference to the DVO under Section 142A was invalid without rejecting the assessee's books of account, especially for assessments prior to the amendment effective from October 1, 2014. The cross-objections were allowed to direct the CIT(A) to adjudicate remaining grounds.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that a reference to the DVO under Section 142A was invalid without rejecting the assessee's books of account, especially for assessments prior to the amendment effective from October 1, 2014. The cross-objections were allowed to direct the CIT(A) to adjudicate remaining grounds.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeals. It ruled that the reference to the DVO was invalid because the AO had not rejected the assessee's books of account, which was a prerequisite under Section 142A at the relevant time.

The Tribunal found that the AO made additions arbitrarily without considering earlier findings and evidence. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry by issuing specific notices and considering the assessee's explanations and prior year assessments. The AO's consistent view in allowing similar deductions in preceding years indicated a proper examination, making the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the source of funds, including pension income, amounts received from their son, and a loan from their father-in-law. The AO and CIT(A) had not properly examined this evidence. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC paid late is justified. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT-1.

The Tribunal held that the entire sale consideration cannot be taxed as capital gain and that deductions and exemptions as per the relevant sections of the Act must be allowed. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was valid as the sale deed was registered on 30.09.2009, and the assessee declared the transaction in a subsequent return. The claim for deduction under Section 54B was denied as the land was purchased more than two years before the sale of the original agricultural land.

The Tribunal held that income from deferred tax liabilities is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA, following its own previous orders and High Court judgments. However, interest on employee advances was not eligible, while written-back provisions required further verification. Loss on sale of assets would lead to consequential relief under Section 80IA on the enhanced income.

The Tribunal held that income from deferred tax liabilities is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA, following its own previous orders and High Court judgments. However, interest on employee advances was not eligible, while written-back provisions required further verification. Loss on sale of assets would lead to consequential relief under Section 80IA on the enhanced income.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income-tax Act requires a credit entry in the assessee's books of accounts. Since the assessee denied the alleged share transactions and no such entries were found in their books or Demat account, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income-tax Act requires a credit entry in the assessee's books of accounts. Since the assessee denied the alleged share transactions and no such entries were found in their books or Demat account, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C cannot be invoked in cases of distress sale by a recovery officer. The sale proceeds in such forced auctions represent the maximum realizable value, and the fair market value cannot exceed this amount.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without examining the merits of the case. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C cannot be invoked in cases of distress sale by a recovery officer. The sale proceeds in such forced auctions represent the maximum realizable value, and the fair market value cannot exceed this amount.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was justified as the premium was received from individuals, not a venture capital fund, and the agreement with the VC fund did not override the Act. The disallowance of travel expenses was restricted to 5%, and the disallowance of salary expenses was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.