ITAT Indore Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal held that the AO's observation that investment in shares generated exempted income was factually incorrect. Since no exempt income was earned during the year, Section 14A of the Act is not applicable. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of 25% of advertisement expenses was not justified as the Assessing Officer did not point out specific defects. The disallowance was restricted to 5%. For printing and maintenance expenses, the adhoc disallowance was deleted. The disallowance for business promotion expenses was also deleted as the assessee produced the bill and no defect was pointed out by the AO.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to grant a necessary opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an appropriate order, while the assessee was directed to participate in the hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard and that the rejection of the application was against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(Exemption) violated principles of natural justice. The assessee undertook to submit all requisite donation details, and thus the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance throughout the assessment and appellate stages. While acknowledging the grounds of appeal related to lack of opportunity, the Tribunal found that the assessee could not dictate terms to the AO. Ultimately, to meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment, granting the assessee one last opportunity.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to provide a hearing opportunity. The assessee was also directed to ensure participation without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's prior application for registration under Section 12AB was rejected, which is a prerequisite for 80G approval. However, considering the undertaking by the assessee's AR to provide all necessary details, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision on a de novo basis.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal, noting that the revenue did not object to the request. The Tribunal also clarified that the assessee remains free to recall the order if their application under the scheme is rejected.

The Tribunal held that the enhancement of income by the CIT(A) without providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard is illegal and bad in law, violating Section 251(2) of the Act. The addition made by the AO was based on estimation and conjectures.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee regretted the non-compliance and assured that the required donation details were now available and would be submitted. The Tribunal found it just and fair to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision on a denovo basis after the assessee submits the required details.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the principles of natural justice, remanded the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund and ensure active participation in subsequent hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The AO is to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing and pass an uninfluenced order.

The Tribunal found it fit to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh, considering the principle of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a necessary opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity for registration as the denial of such registration impacts its charitable purpose. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal granted the request of the assessee to withdraw the appeal, as the departmental representative did not object. The Tribunal also clarified that the assessee is free to recall the order if their application under the scheme is rejected.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals was due to reasons beyond the assessee's control, including a pandemic and legal proceedings, and not due to malafide intent. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reasons for the delay, including FIRs, suspension of management, and the COVID-19 pandemic, were beyond the assessee's control and not malafide. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merit after hearing both parties.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the reasons were beyond the assessee's control and not malafide. The appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after resolving the delay issue.

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and fair play, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is to provide an opportunity for hearing and pass an appropriate order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the extraordinary circumstances faced by the assessee society. The appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) to decide the matters on merit after adjudicating the delay.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the first appeals by the assessee was due to circumstances beyond their control, such as FIRs, suspension of management, and the pandemic, and not due to malafide intentions. Therefore, the delay was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, following its previous order and the reasoning that the delay was not malafide or deliberate. The cases were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits after resolving the delay issue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing a previous ITAT order and the extraordinary circumstances faced by the assessee society. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merits after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging that the reasons were beyond the assessee's control and not due to malafide intentions. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the case on its merits after resolving the delay issue.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, not malafide intent. The Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, referencing a previous ITAT order where similar delays due to management issues were accepted. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on their merits after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to file a recall application if their scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the reasons explained by the assessee, arising from circumstances beyond their control like FIRs and management suspension, were not malafide or deliberate. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as they had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal as the assessee intended to pursue the resolution under the "Sabka Vishwas Scheme". The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO had erroneously used the tax audit report of a prior year (AY 2016-17) to make the addition for the current AY 2017-18. The assessee had demonstrated that no such purchase was made in the relevant year and that the tax audit report for AY 2017-18 was not required.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order rejecting the application for registration was not justified. It acknowledged the assessee's plea of a bonafide oversight and the need for an opportunity to present all details.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the non-service of notices. Adhering to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to properly consider the assessee's compliance with requisitions and incorrectly dismissed the appeal as not admitted. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed the order ex-parte without giving the assessee adequate opportunity, despite the assessee's counsel being overburdened during a busy period. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition, based on SEBI investigation reports, was made without providing the investigation report of the Directorate of Investigation to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO.