ITAT Allahabad Judgments — September 2021

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s addition of Rs. 50,000 on account of sale of prospectus, finding the assessee failed to discharge its onus. However, it allowed the deduction for expenditure where TDS was deposited before the due date of filing the return, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Calcutta Export Company.

The Tribunal held that the eligibility for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for cooperative banks requires a banking license from the RBI, and the retrospective effect of such a license needs to be examined. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication on this issue and to verify details for the second limb of the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the eligibility for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for cooperative banks requires a banking license from the RBI, and the retrospective effect of such a license needs to be examined. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication on this issue and to verify details for the second limb of the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the land in question is within 8 km of municipal limits and thus a capital asset. It also held Section 50C applicable but remanded the matter to the AO for referring the property to the Valuation Officer to determine the fair market value.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the explanation provided and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic period. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal held that it should be restricted to the profit element of the alleged out-of-books sales, not the entire sale proceeds, and based on the average sale price recorded in the assessee's books.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not provide elaborate reasons for rejecting the assessee's claim that the jewellery was 'Stridhan' acquired at the time of her marriage. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh determination with directions to pass reasoned orders.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions without a remand report and ignoring the fact that the assessee admitted to excess stock. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions without a remand report and ignoring the fact that the assessee admitted to excess stock. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.