ITAT Indore Judgments — March 2024

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim that the payee, EPCO, had filed its income tax return and paid the due tax. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 201(1) and 201(1A). The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that original and reassessment proceedings, along with their respective penalty proceedings, are independent. The CIT(A)'s view that penalty proceedings become void after reassessment was incorrect. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the authorities had incorrectly calculated the unexplained investment by merely taking the difference between total purchases and total sales without considering intra-day transactions or potential double inclusions. While the assessee could not provide complete details, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal to close litigation.

The Tribunal held that a mere surrender of income during a search does not constitute 'undisclosed income' as defined under Section 271AAB unless it is represented by specific items like money, bullion, or entries in books of account found during the search. Since the AO himself noted that no incriminating material was found, the penalty was not imposable.

The Tribunal held that a mere surrender of income during a search does not constitute 'undisclosed income' as defined under Section 271AAB unless it is represented by specific items like money, bullion, or entries in books of account found during the search. Since the AO himself noted that no incriminating material was found, the penalty was not imposable.

The Tribunal held that a mere surrender of income during a search does not constitute 'undisclosed income' as defined under Section 271AAB unless it is represented by specific items like money, bullion, or entries in books of account found during the search. Since the AO himself noted that no incriminating material was found, the penalty was not imposable.

The Tribunal remanded the brokerage expense issue to the AO for verification of receipts and evidence. For the Section 54B exemption, the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction even if the land was purchased in his wife's name, provided the funds were from the assessee, but disallowed an additional claim for an agreement to sell due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that a mere surrender of income during a search does not constitute 'undisclosed income' as defined under Section 271AAB unless it is represented by specific items like money, bullion, or entries in books of account found during the search. Since the AO himself noted that no incriminating material was found, the penalty was not imposable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the grounds on merit and that principles of natural justice require giving the assessee another opportunity. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(E)'s order as the assessee failed to comply with notices and did not prosecute the appeal. The assessee's plea of certain requirements being not applicable was not substantiated.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the peak credit details provided by the assessee. The addition should be restricted to the peak credit amount, considering the regular deposits and withdrawals in the bank account.

The Tribunal noted that the AO made an addition without inquiry and the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without deciding the issues raised by the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's circumstances and the principle of substantial justice. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with a direction to the assessee to represent her case adequately.

The Tribunal held that the mere use of terms like 'Islamic world' or 'Islamic Scholars' in the trust's objects does not automatically mean it benefits only a specific religious community. If the charitable objects are not restricted to a particular community, Section 13(1)(b) is not attracted.

The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal regarding household expenses, deleting additions for assessment years 1988-89 to 1991-92 while upholding the addition for 1992-93. The tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the reassessment proceedings were invalid.

The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal regarding household expenses, deleting additions for assessment years 1988-89 to 1991-92 while upholding the addition for 1992-93. The tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the reassessment proceedings were invalid.

The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal regarding household expenses, deleting additions for assessment years 1988-89 to 1991-92 while upholding the addition for 1992-93. The tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the reassessment proceedings were invalid.

The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal regarding household expenses, deleting additions for assessment years 1988-89 to 1991-92 while upholding the addition for 1992-93. The tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the reassessment proceedings were invalid.

The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal regarding household expenses, deleting additions for assessment years 1988-89 to 1991-92 while upholding the addition for 1992-93. The tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the reassessment proceedings were invalid.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding that it was passed without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to be heard on both the delay and the merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's submission of the wrong form was an inadvertent mistake. Therefore, the matter was required to be reconsidered by the CIT(E) after giving the assessee one more opportunity to submit the correct documents.

The Tribunal held that there is no provision under Section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act that allows an assessee to file an appeal against an order passed by authorities under Section 119(2)(b). Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the Income-tax Act is a self-integrated law for determining total income and deductions. The AO had made sufficient inquiries, and the rent expenditure was allowable under Section 57(iii) or 30(a)(i) as it was for the assessee's purposes, with TDS and payee details on record. The revision order was not sustainable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to file an application for recall if their scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to file an application for recall if their scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to file an application for recall if their scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal ex-parte due to the non-appearance of the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee included allegations of violation of natural justice and erroneous confirmation of additions.

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to prove the service of the revision order upon the assessee prior to the date claimed by the assessee. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries during the assessment proceedings, and the PCIT's view that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue was not sustainable. Therefore, the revision order was quashed.