ITAT Indore Judgments — July 2024

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had sent notices to email addresses not provided by the assessee. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to pay advance tax under Section 249(4)(b) does not arise in appeals against reassessment orders, following its consistent view. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the land in question was rural agricultural land and not a capital asset, making any gain from its sale exempt from tax. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee sold plots before construction and entered into agreements for construction, suggesting a contractor role. However, due to pending Supreme Court adjudication on completion certificates and the need for verification of sale deeds, the matter was set aside.

The Tribunal rejected the disallowance under Section 14A for both assessment years. For donation expenses, the issue was remanded to the AO for verification of eligibility for deduction under Section 80G. The disallowance for employee PF contribution was upheld, and interest levies were rejected.

The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to comply with the requirements and present its case.

The Tribunal rejected the disallowance under Section 14A for both assessment years. For donation expenses, the issue was remanded to the AO for verification of eligibility for deduction under Section 80G. The disallowance for employee PF contribution was upheld, and interest levies were rejected.

The Tribunal restored the issue of explaining the source of cash deposit to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to file additional evidence, and the AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as the assessee did not wish to press it, having filed a duplicate appeal.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order without properly examining the merits of the case, which is not justifiable. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable as the investment was brought forward from earlier years without any fresh investment or disallowance in those years. The disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) was dismissed as the issue was settled by the Supreme Court against the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the documents provided by the assessee were not clear and the CIT(A) had called for a remand report which was not submitted by the AO. Therefore, the matter requires fresh adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions and agreed with the consensus of both parties. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-prosecution without complying with the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in treating the cash deposits as unexplained income. The Tribunal also upheld the applicability of the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE for the entire previous year, following a High Court decision.

The Tribunal held that since the addition itself, which formed the basis for the penalty, was no longer in existence due to the remand, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not survive. The penalty was accordingly deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the quantum appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's negligent approach, the Tribunal found that the source of investment and the addition made by the AO were not properly verified. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay as the CIT(A) had issued notices to an incorrect email ID. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to participate in the hearings and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present the application for condonation of delay to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1769 days, considering the circumstances including the pending rectification petition and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal also deleted the adjustment of Rs. 1,35,450/- made by the CPC, finding it to be a double addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the quantum appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's negligent approach, the Tribunal found that the source of investment and the addition made by the AO were not properly verified. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and a justice-oriented approach. It then set aside the penalty order as the original assessment order, which was the basis for the penalty, had been remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 5 months in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the sufficient cause shown by the assessee regarding the counsel's medical condition. The matter was then remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments with another co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). For one assessment year, the disallowance was deleted, while for another, a portion of the disallowance was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the amended MOA was not considered by the CIT(E). Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(E) to verify the amended MOA and re-examine the assessee's activities in light of the amendments and cited judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments with another co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). For one assessment year, the disallowance was deleted, while for another, a portion of the disallowance was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's submission regarding the delay in filing the appeal. If the delay is condoned, the CIT(A) is to decide the appeal on its merits without being influenced by the previous order.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report (Form 10B) is a procedural lapse and not a substantive condition for denying exemption under Sections 11/12. The assessment is considered pending until the appellate proceedings are concluded.

The Tribunal found that it could not conclusively determine whether the assessee had claimed the impugned sum as a deduction due to conflicting information and the lack of a clarifying certificate from the auditors. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly deleted the penalty as the quantum on which it was levied was already deleted by the ITAT. The revenue's appeal against this deletion was found to be devoid of merit.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's request and the department's no objection.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee did not provide any evidence or assistance to rebut the findings of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's impugned order passed under section 263 was invalid for want of jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT's observation that no reply was filed by the assessee to the show cause notices was contrary to the record, as the assessee had duly filed replies via e-mail. This indicated a non-application of mind by the Pr. CIT. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that one of the issues raised by the Pr. CIT (capital introduced by partners) was indeed part of the limited scrutiny undertaken by the AO. The AO had conducted a proper inquiry on this issue, issued a specific notice, received a detailed reply with supporting evidence, and was satisfied before passing the assessment order. Therefore, the Pr. CIT could not invoke section 263 to direct a denovo assessment on an issue already examined by the AO during scrutiny. The Tribunal also observed that an issue not forming part of limited scrutiny under CASS cannot be taken up under section 263 proceedings. The appropriate remedy for such an issue would have been to obtain approval for expanding the scrutiny or to proceed under section 147/148. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order of the Pr. CIT was unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) as there was no obligation to pay advance tax in this reassessment scenario. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had made attempts to submit documents and provided explanations for the source of deposits, leading to a remand.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for factual verification regarding the payment of employer's contribution to PF/ESI in terms of Section 43B. The assessment order is to be modified accordingly.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's claim of non-receipt of the order and the subsequent discovery through recovery proceedings. The Tribunal found that factual aspects, including calculation errors and the BDA's submission of Form 26A, were not properly examined.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's claim of non-receipt of the order and the subsequent discovery through recovery proceedings. The Tribunal found that factual aspects, including calculation errors and the BDA's submission of Form 26A, were not properly examined.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's claim of non-receipt of the order and the subsequent discovery through recovery proceedings. The Tribunal found that factual aspects, including calculation errors and the BDA's submission of Form 26A, were not properly examined.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's claim of non-receipt of the order and the subsequent discovery through recovery proceedings. The Tribunal found that factual aspects, including calculation errors and the BDA's submission of Form 26A, were not properly examined.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's claim of non-receipt of the order and the subsequent discovery through recovery proceedings. The Tribunal found that factual aspects, including calculation errors and the BDA's submission of Form 26A, were not properly examined.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's claim of non-receipt of the order and the subsequent discovery through recovery proceedings. The Tribunal found that factual aspects, including calculation errors and the BDA's submission of Form 26A, were not properly examined.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing the order without considering the submissions, documentary evidence, and the remand report. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal. It held that the assessee was aware of not meeting the criteria for deduction under Section 80IB(10) regarding built-up area and developer status, thus making an incorrect claim and furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the presumption under Section 132(4A) is rebuttable. Since the assessee provided evidence that the seized documents and transactions related to a partnership firm, and these were recorded in the firm's books, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the presumption under Section 132(4A) is rebuttable. Since the assessee provided evidence that the seized documents and transactions related to a partnership firm, and these were recorded in the firm's books, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeals without providing an opportunity to explain the delay. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had issued a circular allowing for condonation of delay in filing returns for cooperative societies claiming Section 80P deduction. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessee's application for condonation of delay is decided.