ITAT Indore Judgments — September 2024

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence to prove there was no dual claim of depreciation and application of income on the same assets. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the AO for further verification.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was not eligible for exemption under Section 11/12 due to lack of registration, it was entitled to claim deductions for expenses incurred in earning income. The AO was directed to re-assess the total income after allowing legitimate expenses.

The Tribunal held that the first appeal was filed within the time granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court due to the COVID-19 pandemic and also considered the assessee's claim of technical glitches. Therefore, the appeal was deemed to be filed in time.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Secretary had explained the sources of deposits, but supporting evidence was not filed. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to file evidence before the AO, considering principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a justice-oriented approach and the assessee's sufficient cause. The Tribunal admitted the appeal for hearing, considering the merit of the case and the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji.

The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance under Section 143(1) was not tenable. It noted that the relevant amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) disallowing deductions for belated returns was not applicable for AY 2019-20.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no error or illegality. The revenue's appeal was rejected as devoid of merit, particularly as the assessee's provisional approval had been converted to final approval.

The tribunal disposed of the appeal based on the assessee's declaration to abide by the Supreme Court's decision on an identical issue. The Assessing Officer was directed to apply the Supreme Court's decision to the assessee's case.

The ITAT found that the assessee had presented new evidence regarding the delay which was not before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of both the delay and the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per the prevailing CBDT circulars. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case with supporting evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that for Section 54 exemption, a registered sale deed or an agreement to sell culminating into a sale deed is necessary, and an allotment letter alone is insufficient. The claim for cost of improvement was allowed by the CIT(A) and thus not considered by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. The assessee's cross-objection was allowed, directing the AO to act on the assessee's rectification application concerning the opening balance.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as their grievance was resolved by obtaining the exemption under Section 10(23C). The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to it being a duplicate filing.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the bills for agricultural produce were genuine and the AO was not justified in rejecting them solely because the buyer did not respond to a notice. The Tribunal also found that the evidence for loan recoveries was sufficient.