ITAT Allahabad Judgments — November 2020

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity and directed the CIT(A) to provide a copy of the bank statement and adjudicate all issues afresh. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to cooperate in the proceedings.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the tax liability was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal, taking a lenient view of the assessee's habitual non-compliance, set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity for the assessee to explain why the penalty should not be levied.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and did not provide specific dates of notices or hearing, nor did it address the merits of the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish that the rent paid was excessive or unreasonable by not conducting an inquiry into fair market rent or providing comparable data. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40A(2)(b) was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the entire godown rent claim could not be denied without proper inquiry and remanded the issue to the AO for further verification. Regarding the bonus, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s restriction based on the previous year's amount to be improper and allowed the full claim.

The Tribunal held that the AO's ad-hoc disallowance was arbitrary and unsustainable as no specific defects in the expenses or lack of supporting bills/vouchers were pointed out. The AO had already accepted the incurrence of expenses for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish that the rent paid was excessive or unreasonable by not conducting an inquiry into fair market rent or providing comparable data. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40A(2)(b) was not warranted.

The Tribunal remitted the profit margin issue back to the AO for fresh determination. The addition for 'Paan' business was deleted as the assessee proved it was his father's business. The advance discount was confirmed as taxable income.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding the invalidity of the notice u/s 143(2). It partly allowed the appeal concerning the addition to gross receipts, confirming it to the extent of Rs. 15,58,492. The issue of protective addition for capital introduced by partners was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC was not in accordance with Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The computation of the 15% accumulation should be based on the income declared by the assessee, not on a reduced gross receipt after accounting for amounts set apart due to non-receipt.