ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — March 2018

The Tribunal found that both assessees had reasonable cause for non-compliance due to medical reasons (accident and illness). The Tribunal also noted subsequent cooperation in assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal found that both assessees had reasonable cause for non-compliance due to medical reasons (accident and illness). The Tribunal also noted subsequent cooperation in assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal found that both assessees had reasonable cause for non-compliance due to medical reasons (accident and illness). The Tribunal also noted subsequent cooperation in assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal found that both assessees had reasonable cause for non-compliance due to medical reasons (accident and illness). The Tribunal also noted subsequent cooperation in assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the income by adding Rs. 20 lakhs to the income disclosed in the return, and all other additions were deleted. This decision aimed to bring an end to the various issues raised in the appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the AO, finding no justification for disallowances under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned. The Tribunal also found the AO's ad-hoc disallowance of expenses to be unsubstantiated, especially given the audited books of accounts.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance for coal consumption, finding it unjustified as it was based on sales instead of production and the assessee provided all necessary records. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain partial disallowances for telephone and conveyance expenses, considering them to have an element of personal expenditure.

The Tribunal held that both assessees had a reasonable cause (accident and illness) for their non-compliance, as supported by medical documents. The Tribunal also noted subsequent cooperation in assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal found that both assessees had reasonable cause for non-compliance due to medical reasons (accident and illness). The Tribunal also noted subsequent cooperation in assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in the decision to restrict the disallowance. The Assessing Officer had invoked Section 40A(2)(b) without substantiating the unreasonableness of the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not required to get its accounts audited under Section 44AB and was eligible to claim the commission expenditure. However, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of cash deposit was unjustified as it was out of matured National Savings Certificates and recorded in the cash book. The addition for closing stock was also deleted as the Sales Tax Authority had accepted the assessee's accounts. The addition for capital introduced was deleted as the assessee had explained the source of funds from share trading and agricultural income.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of the difference in weight of the gram account, finding it based on presumption. It also deleted the addition for the difference in valuation of closing stock, noting minimal difference from market rates. The Tribunal further deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure on unsecured loans, stating that the Assessing Officer failed to meet the conditions under Section 40A(2)(b).

The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a Central Co-operative Bank, is eligible for claiming provision for bad and doubtful debts within the limits prescribed under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The issue regarding carry forward of losses was set aside for verification by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be taxed on the income earned and that the intimation lacked details on how the higher income was calculated. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) passed an ex-parte order without appreciating the details and documents filed. The Tribunal set aside the order to the CIT(Exemption) for de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and the assessee was unable to present necessary documents. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's contention regarding the AIR information requiring verification by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid as it did not clearly specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Karnataka High Court's judgment, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 27 lakhs on account of unexplained cash credit as the assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors. However, the disallowance of expenses was partly allowed, reducing the disallowance from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) might have wrongly applied Section 13(1)(b). The objects of the society are broad and educational in nature. The issue was restored to the CIT for fresh inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's contention regarding the incorrect calculation of total cash deposits by the Assessing Officer was valid. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for recalculating the peak addition.