ITAT Indore Judgments — April 2024

The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided some documents, they were not sufficient to satisfy the CIT(E)'s queries regarding foreign contributions. The Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to make a proper representation.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal also decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to submit the pending documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's difficult personal circumstances. It restored the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present their case properly.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's difficult personal circumstances. It restored the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present their case properly.

The Tribunal found that while the AO was justified in rejecting the books of accounts, the method of estimating profits by averaging GP rates over different years with vastly different turnovers was flawed. The Tribunal revised the estimated GP rate based on a subsequent year with comparable turnover.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's difficult personal circumstances. It restored the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present their case properly.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the counsel's lapse and the assessee's timely steps to file the appeal. On merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the identical issues in a previous assessment year that was remanded.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of the assessee's grandfather. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that notices from the CIT(A) were not sent to the email ID provided by the assessee in Form 35, violating procedural rules. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not adequately comply with Section 250(6) and that the assessee deserves another opportunity for proper adjudication. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not adequately comply with Section 250(6) and that the assessee deserves another opportunity for proper adjudication. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not properly ascertain whether the order under Section 154 was served on the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after determining the issue of service of the order.

The Tribunal held that the amounts paid to distributors of pre-paid vouchers do not constitute 'commission' and Section 194H is not applicable. It also held that roaming charges paid to other telecom operators are neither 'Fees for Technical Services' nor 'Royalty', thus not requiring TDS under Section 194J.

The Tribunal held that payments for roaming charges made by the assessee to OTOs are neither 'fees for technical services' nor 'royalty' and thus do not attract TDS under Section 194J. Consequently, the assessee cannot be held as an 'assessee-in-default' for non-deduction of tax on these payments.

The Tribunal held that payments for roaming charges made by the assessee to OTOs are neither 'fees for technical services' nor 'royalty' and thus do not attract TDS under Section 194J. Consequently, the assessee cannot be held as an 'assessee-in-default' for non-deduction of tax on these payments.

The Tribunal found that the details provided by the assessee regarding the utilization of borrowed funds were not clear and required proper verification. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, not on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied if the addition is based purely on estimation. Additionally, the penalty proceedings were quashed on the ground that the show-cause notice was vague and did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated, following a jurisdictional High Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the seized material itself explained the nature and source of these transactions as booking advances converted into loans. Therefore, these did not fall under Section 69A, and consequently, Section 115BBE was not attracted.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied if the addition is based purely on estimation. Additionally, the penalty proceedings were quashed on the ground that the show-cause notice was vague and did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated, following a jurisdictional High Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the AO had erroneously treated the total sale proceeds of shares as income without considering the cost of purchase. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the notice for reassessment might be barred by limitation. Based on the remand report, the assessee's total income from share transactions and dividend was found to be below the taxable threshold.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied if the addition is based purely on estimation. Additionally, the penalty proceedings were quashed on the ground that the show-cause notice was vague and did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated, following a jurisdictional High Court decision.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not produced the cash book for the demonetization deposit and that the AO's addition on account of gross profit was made summarily. Therefore, both issues were remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied if the addition is based purely on estimation. Additionally, the penalty proceedings were quashed on the ground that the show-cause notice was vague and did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated, following a jurisdictional High Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the AO had erroneously treated the total sale proceeds of shares as income without considering the cost of purchase. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the notice for reassessment might be barred by limitation. Based on the remand report, the assessee's total income from share transactions and dividend was found to be below the taxable threshold.

The Tribunal held that the seized material itself explained the nature and source of the unsecured loans as converted booking advances. Therefore, these transactions did not fall under Section 69A, and consequently, Section 115BBE was not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the seized material itself explained the nature and source of these transactions as booking advances converted into loans. Therefore, these did not fall under Section 69A, and consequently, Section 115BBE was not attracted.

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a proper adjudication. The assessee was directed to participate in hearings and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's reply and additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication to provide an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee one more opportunity to produce evidence and for proper verification of the addition and related expenses.

The Tribunal held that while the AO was justified in making a best judgment assessment due to non-compliance, the addition of the entire deposit was incorrect. The Tribunal applied the peak credit theory, considering regular deposits and withdrawals, and restricted the addition to the peak credit after deducting the opening balance.

The Tribunal found that the assessee raised valid points regarding the nature of the land and the AO's failure to grant deductions. Considering the principle of natural justice and the assessee's expired during Covid, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal found that due to non-service of notices at the proper email address, the assessee was unable to attend the first appeal proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the AO's order disposing of the assessee's objection was infirm as it did not consider the correct loan amount. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration of the objection and the merits of the addition, including the time-limit issue.

The tribunal held that a protective addition cannot be made without a substantive addition in the hands of the primary assessee. Since no substantive addition was made in this case, the protective addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 12AB was omitted retrospectively from 01.06.2020 and re-introduced from 01.04.2021. Therefore, the existing 12AA registration was sufficient for the AY 2021-22.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursement amount for expenses incurred on behalf of BPCL explained the source of the capital introduction. The lease rent of Rs. 1,14,000 was directed to be assessed as income from other sources.

The Tribunal noted that the orders were ex-parte and without considering the assessee's claim of business turnover as the source of the deposit. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to produce supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that these charges collected from consumers for infrastructure development are capital receipts. They are to be capitalized and reduced from the cost of fixed assets for depreciation purposes, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that these charges collected from consumers for infrastructure development are capital receipts. Therefore, they should be reduced from the cost of fixed assets for depreciation purposes, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that these charges collected from consumers for infrastructure development are capital receipts. They are to be capitalized and reduced from the cost of fixed assets for depreciation purposes, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that these charges collected from consumers for infrastructure development are capital receipts. They are to be capitalized and reduced from the cost of fixed assets for depreciation purposes, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that these charges collected from consumers for infrastructure development are capital receipts. They are to be capitalized and reduced from the cost of fixed assets for depreciation purposes, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal found that the cash recoveries from debtors were significantly less than the bank deposits on the dates of deposit. While the assessee provided cash book entries, they lacked sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the debtors. The Tribunal noted a potential for double taxation regarding interest income already taxed.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding the CIT(A)'s failure to address a specific issue as non-pressed. It upheld the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the addition of Rs. 28,52,000/- for unexplained cash and the disallowance of Rs. 1,80,000/- as lease rent. However, it deleted the addition of Rs. 7,72,360/- related to restaurant sales.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and participate in the proceedings.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to a sufficient cause. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without proper communication to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the surrender was made without any factual basis or incriminating material. Therefore, the surrendered income could not be taxed, even if it was initially offered by the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's inability to make an effective representation due to financial constraints and the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeals before the CIT(A) by holding that the assessee had a 'sufficient cause'. Consequently, the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits.