ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — August 2022

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Section 80P deduction by the CPC under Section 143(1) for late filing was not permissible as the enabling provisions for such action were introduced only by the Finance Act, 2021. Prior to this amendment, the CPC lacked the jurisdiction to make such disallowances on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective, not retrospective. Therefore, disallowances made on this basis for assessment years prior to the prospective application are not sustainable.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of loose slips as the liability was shown as capital work-in-progress and no payment was made. The Tribunal also deleted additions related to work-in-progress and unsecured loans after considering the assessee's explanations and documentary evidence. The issue of jewellery was set aside to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to examine the creditworthiness of the donor and the circumstances leading to the gift, which are essential ingredients for proving the genuineness of a gift transaction. Therefore, the Pr. CIT was justified in exercising powers under Section 263.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the COVID-19 period. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal set aside the addition, taking a sympathetic view of the assessee's circumstances and the death of the potential corroborating witness. The Tribunal noted the assessment order was passed ex-parte due to procedural errors.

The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 263 cannot be initiated solely based on an audit objection. The PCIT's order was quashed as it was prompted by an audit objection rather than an independent opinion of erroneousness and prejudice to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified as investments were made from personal funds and not from borrowed funds. The issue of Mumbai office expenses was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and taken a conscious view based on the evidence, including the absence of the assessee's signature on the agreement to sell. The PCIT's revision order was quashed as the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263 as the AO had applied his mind to the facts and taken a possible view. The Tribunal restored the assessment orders passed by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under section 263 was bad in law due to non-service of the show cause notice on the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had taken a possible view on merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) were incorrect in invoking Section 115BBE as the source of income was clearly identifiable as business income. The judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kim Pharma Ltd. was distinguished.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) were incorrect in invoking Section 115BBE as the source of income was clearly identifiable as business income. The judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kim Pharma Ltd. was distinguished.

The Tribunal followed previous orders in the assessee's group company's case and set aside the issues to the Assessing Officer for decision. The issues were decided in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263 as the AO had applied his mind to the facts and taken a possible view. The Tribunal restored the assessment orders passed by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the amended Rule 8D is prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively. It also found that the AO's disallowance lacked proper reasoning and justification, as the assessee had already made a proportionate suo moto disallowance.

The Tribunal held that both the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method and the Net Asset Method (using stamp duty valuation) are approved methods for determining the FMV of unquoted shares under Rule 11UA. The AO and CIT(A) erred in rejecting these valuations.

The Tribunal followed previous orders in the assessee's group company's case and set aside the issues to the Assessing Officer for decision. The issues were decided in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes.