ITAT Indore Judgments — June 2024

The Tribunal held that the condition of paying advance tax under Section 249(4)(b) is not applicable when no return of income was filed because the assessee had no obligation to pay advance tax, especially in cases of reassessment or where income is below the taxable limit. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order of non-admission was set aside.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a directory, not mandatory, requirement. It also noted that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) override the provisions of the Act, and rules cannot be contrary to the Act. Therefore, the disallowance of foreign tax credit for delayed filing of Form 67 was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be made if the auditors made a reporting mistake and the assessee did not claim the item as a deduction. They also noted that the issue of appealing against a Section 154 order instead of a Section 143(1) intimation had been settled in favor of the assessee by the same bench.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given an opportunity to present evidence for the cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) cannot be made if payments were made by the due dates under PF law, despite a potential error in the audit report. The technicality of appealing against a rectification order instead of the original intimation was also addressed.

The Tribunal agreed that the appeal was filed within the statutory time after the service of the assessment order. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's delay condonation application, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of whether the amount paid to the agreement holder was a business expenditure allowable as a deduction back to the AO for fresh consideration. The issue of enhancement on account of interest income was also remitted to the AO.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying additional evidence. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow deduction u/s 80TTA for interest income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation due to medical circumstances and counsel's oversight. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found deficiencies at the assessment stage attributable to both the assessee and the AO, including non-compliance by the assessee and the AO's failure to re-show-cause after understanding the full transaction. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of whether the amount paid to the agreement holder was a business expenditure allowable as a deduction back to the AO for fresh consideration. The issue of enhancement on account of interest income was also remitted to the AO.

The tribunal found that the impugned order was a duplicate of a previously decided appeal. Therefore, the tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to the earlier ITAT order.

The Tribunal held that penalty is not sustainable for the portion of additions already deleted by the ITAT in quantum proceedings. Penalty was upheld for the undisclosed interest income and a part of the capital gains, but deleted for the portion of capital gains attributable to estimation differences.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to pay advance tax under Section 249(4)(b) does not arise when an appeal is filed against a reassessment order, especially when the assessee claims no taxable income. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 126 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the assessee had a reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no error in restricting the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 6,48,13,356. The decision was based on the factual findings regarding borrowed funds utilized for investments and the Supreme Court's ruling in Maxopp Investment Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no error in restricting the disallowance under Section 14A. The CIT(A) had considered factual details regarding borrowed funds used for investments and arrived at a specific disallowance amount.

The Tribunal held that since the revision order was quashed, the assessment order passed pursuant to it also stood quashed. Both parties agreed that the appeal had become infructuous.

The Tribunal, in agreement with both parties, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case and ensure proper adjudication, upholding principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that while the claim was disallowed for want of evidence, the assessee's explanation was bona fide. Therefore, the disallowance did not automatically imply concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee to present relevant details and evidence, which were not properly examined earlier.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that notices were sent to the wrong email ID. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was physically filed within the time limit. Therefore, the appeal was treated as filed in time and restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that Section 43B disallowance is applicable only when a deduction for the sum has been claimed in the Profit and Loss account. Since the assessee did not claim any deduction for the service tax, the disallowance under Section 43B was vacated.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by considering additional evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to respond. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the seized loose paper, being a non-speaking document without corroboration, could not be the basis for assessment. It also found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition for unexplained cash deposits, as the opening cash balance was supported by previous years' returns and cash flow statements.

The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) is not applicable when there is no obligation to pay advance tax. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on this ground without considering the merits of the case.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P.Ltd. regarding the disallowance for late payment of employee contributions to PF/ESIC. The issue regarding the assessment procedure was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the AO did not find any incorrect or false information supplied by the assessee, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that payments made to a government undertaking for electricity bills are covered by the exceptions in Rule 6DD. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40A(3) was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to ex-parte orders and non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal found that the quantum assessment and consequential penalty orders required fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to ex-parte orders and non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal found that the quantum assessment and consequential penalty orders required fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to ex-parte orders and non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal found that the quantum assessment and consequential penalty orders required fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to ex-parte orders and non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal found that the quantum assessment and consequential penalty orders required fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) ought to have granted the assessee the requested time to comply with the notice and furnish details. Since the impugned order was passed prematurely, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to ex-parte orders and non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal found that the quantum assessment and consequential penalty orders required fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to ex-parte orders and non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal found that the quantum assessment and consequential penalty orders required fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the issue had become infructuous due to subsequent rectification orders.

The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified. The sale was conducted under the supervision of statutory authorities during liquidation, after public notice and inviting objections, and the property had restrictions on its use.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) ought to have granted the assessee the requested time to comply with the notice and furnish details. Since the impugned order was passed prematurely, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved one more opportunity to furnish the necessary documents and details. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report in Form 10B is a procedural irregularity and not a bar to claiming exemption under Section 11/12. The assessment proceedings are considered pending until the appeal is disposed of by the Tribunal.

The ITAT noted that the current appeal was filed mistakenly and was infructuous as a similar appeal on the same issue had already been dismissed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved one more opportunity to furnish the necessary documents and details. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

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

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed received Rs. 6,50,500/- in cash from the sale of agricultural land prior to the sale deed. Therefore, this amount should be considered as an explained source for the bank deposits.

The Tribunal held that the payments for lease rent and computer charges were not bogus, based on valuation certificates, market rates, and the payee's tax filings. Consequently, the denial of exemption under section 11 was also set aside.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on reserves maintained by the assessee in compliance with Section 43(2) of the M.P./Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, is in the nature of business income and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal noted that the AO denied the deduction on interest income earned from Bhopal Cooperative Central Bank and State Bank of India. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. by stating that in the present case, the invested funds were not liabilities but profits not immediately required for lending. Therefore, the interest income is attributable to the business of banking. The Tribunal set aside the issue of quantum of interest eligible for deduction to the AO for verification and computation, considering the profits for the year and opening balance, to allow deduction on interest on such reserves. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the issue of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, but the operative part of the order implies that the appeals are partly allowed based on the Section 80P issue.

The Tribunal held that a notice issued to a deceased person is invalid, rendering the entire assessment proceeding null and void. The CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment was upheld.