ITAT Indore Judgments — August 2024

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the grounds of appeal on merits but had dismissed the appeal summarily. In the interest of justice, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the education cess written off was relatable to excise duty/CENVAT (indirect tax) and not income-tax. Therefore, it was not hit by the disallowance provisions of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision was invalid because the issue of excess interest did not arise from any incriminating material found during the search. Assessments under Section 153C can only be based on such material for completed years.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40A(3). The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation or evidence for the cash payments, and the supplier's ledger indicated no pressure to clear dues or urgent purchases.

The Tribunal noted that the reassessment appeared to be a change of opinion without new material. The CIT(A)'s dismissal for non-prosecution without a decision on merits was found to be contrary to Section 250(6). Therefore, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's bank statements prima facie supported the claim of activity related to road transport services. Considering the assessee's agreement to accept 1% of gross receipts as additional business income, the Tribunal directed the AO to modify the assessment accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous assessment year (AY 2015-16) where the ITAT had deleted a similar addition. Following the precedent, the Tribunal deleted the addition for AY 2014-15.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted an inquiry and was satisfied with the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The PCIT cannot remand the matter for fresh adjudication merely due to a difference of opinion or uncertainty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan. The Tribunal noted that similar additions based on the same creditor had been deleted in previous cases and that the loan had been repaid.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted an inquiry and was satisfied with the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The PCIT cannot remand the matter for fresh adjudication merely due to a difference of opinion or uncertainty.

The Tribunal found that the AO's findings for AY 2015-16 had implications for AY 2017-18. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order confirming the AO's additions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was unsustainable for non-compliance with Section 250(6). The AO's assessment was also flawed as it taxed the entire sale proceeds without deducting the cost of acquisition, which is against the scheme of the Act.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the grievance was resolved. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, agreeing with both parties, decided to remand the case back to the Jurisdictional AO. This is to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case and explain the sources of bank deposits, ensuring principles of natural justice.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as their grievance was resolved by filing a fresh application. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that since the addition of Rs. 3,40,000/- which formed the basis for the penalty was deleted by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, the penalty is not sustainable and must be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) by not providing a reasoned order. Considering the principle of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a proper adjudication.

The Tribunal, in agreement with both parties and in the interest of natural justice, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee is granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted inquiries during both the original scrutiny assessment and the reassessment proceedings, and was satisfied with the evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, the PCIT's order setting aside the assessment for de-novo adjudication was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the grounds raised by the assessee required adjudication on merit. Both parties agreed to remand the matter back to the AO for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in invoking revisionary powers as the Assessing Officer (AO) had failed to consider the impugned property for taxation under Section 56(2)(x)(b), despite making a similar addition for another property. The pendency of an appeal before the CIT(A) for a different property did not bar revision for the impugned property.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in assessing the entire sale consideration without allowing the cost of acquisition or fair market value. The dispute regarding the fair market value and the claim for exemption under Section 54B also required proper verification.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in assessing the entire sale consideration without allowing the cost of acquisition or fair market value. The dispute regarding the fair market value and the claim for exemption under Section 54B also required proper verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of the assessee and the subsequent lack of awareness by the legal heir. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication to provide an opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits.

The Tribunal found that only one effective opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee before the ex-parte order was passed. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in assessing the entire sale consideration without allowing the cost of acquisition or fair market value. The dispute regarding the fair market value and the claim for exemption under Section 54B also required proper verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee, as it comprised government-maintained records and bank statements. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification and examination of these evidences.

The Tribunal noted that notices were not properly served on the legal representative of the deceased assessee, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. The appeal was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had sent the last notice to an email address different from the one provided by the assessee. Considering the interest of justice and the potential lack of knowledge of the notices, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the cash found in locker No. 113, operated on 20.01.2018, could be explained by the assessee's and Smt. Mandeep Kaur Bhatia's funds. However, the cash found in locker No. 121, operated on 12.07.2017, remained unexplained.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding insufficient opportunity. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the cash found in locker No. 113, operated on 20.01.2018, could be explained by the assessee's and Smt. Mandeep Kaur Bhatia's funds. However, the cash found in locker No. 121, operated on 12.07.2017, remained unexplained.

The Tribunal held that the cash found in locker No. 113, operated on 20.01.2018, could be explained by the assessee's and Smt. Mandeep Kaur Bhatia's funds. However, the cash found in locker No. 121, operated on 12.07.2017, remained unexplained.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) order was a non-speaking order and not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reopening of assessment was valid, but the addition on account of share premium was not sustainable as the revenue failed to prove it was the assessee's own undisclosed money. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted due to lack of legal basis and factual support.

The Tribunal held that the gross receipts of each educational institution should be considered separately for the Rs. 1 crore limit under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). Furthermore, the net income, after deducting eligible expenditures, should be assessed to tax.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12. The delay in filing Form 10B was considered directory, and the claim was made after obtaining Section 12AA registration, satisfying the conditions of the proviso to Section 12A(2).

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. As there were no exceptions applicable, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed in the name of a deceased assessee, without being signed and verified by a legal heir, is not a valid appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the current appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient explanation and prima facie merit in the assessee's submission that the AO's case was factually incorrect. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to remove the defects in the appeal filed before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found it fit to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and adjudication on merit, considering principles of natural justice. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a hearing opportunity to the assessee.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee on merit. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merit after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities overlooked the assessee's e-filed return and reply. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's submissions and providing an opportunity for a hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO. The penalty is to be re-adjudicated after the outcome of the pending quantum appeal is known.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.