ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — January 2024

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the impounded document was undated, unsigned, not in the assessee's handwriting, and lacked any corroborative evidence linking it to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty for non-compliance with the first three notices under section 143(2) was not justified as they were statutory notices without calling for specific information, and the assessee had responded by requesting a transfer to the jurisdictional AO. For the notices under section 142(1), the Tribunal found that the non-compliance was a delayed compliance, not a deliberate one, and the assessee had provided explanations and subsequently furnished the required information.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections with a speaking order, as mandated by law. Consequently, the assessment order was vitiated and annulled.

The Tribunal held that while the security deposit and rent paid were linked to a related trust, the entire exemption should not be denied. Instead, only the excess rent and security deposit beyond a reasonable limit should be taxed, following previous year's precedents.

The Tribunal held that while the security deposit and rent paid were linked to a related trust, the entire exemption should not be denied. Instead, only the excess rent and security deposit beyond a reasonable limit should be taxed, following previous year's precedents.

The Tribunal held that while the security deposit and rent paid were linked to a related trust, the entire exemption should not be denied. Instead, only the excess rent and security deposit beyond a reasonable limit should be taxed, following previous year's precedents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessment was completed and unabated, the addition could not be sustained in the absence of incriminating material found during the search.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient justification and documentary evidence for the advance being for business purposes. The Tribunal also noted that the method of valuing transactions with a subsidiary was consistently accepted in prior years.

The tribunal held that merely uploading information on the Income Tax Portal does not constitute effective service of notice. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside due to lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that merely uploading information on the Income Tax Portal is not effective service of notice. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the surrendered income, in this case, was derived from the assessee's business operations and not from unexplained sources. Therefore, it could not be taxed under the deeming provisions of Section 69A and 69B, nor under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessment was completed and unabated, the addition could not be sustained in the absence of incriminating material found during the search.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessment was completed and unabated, the addition could not be sustained in the absence of incriminating material found during the search.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessment was completed and unabated, the addition could not be sustained in the absence of incriminating material found during the search.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient justification and documentary evidence for the advance being for business purposes. The Tribunal also noted that the method of valuing transactions with a subsidiary was consistently accepted in prior years.

The Tribunal held that merely uploading information on the portal does not constitute effective service of notice. The ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that merely uploading a notice on the Income Tax Portal does not constitute effective service of notice. The impugned order was set aside due to lack of proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the CPC and upheld by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. It noted that the Assessing Officer's remand report accepted the assessee's claim, and a similar transaction was accepted in a subsequent year.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee was critical for deciding the exemption claim. Given the ex-parte assessment, the assessee deserved an opportunity to furnish necessary documentation.

The Tribunal held that the surrender regarding alleged advances was made under coercion and lacked corroborative evidence, thus directing its deletion. The addition for excess cash was confirmed as the retraction was not factually correct.

The Tribunal held that the AO had correctly examined the issue and allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) based on the jurisdictional High Court's decision and the Supreme Court's ruling in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was found to be without legal basis.

The Tribunal held that the difference in stock, lacking independent identity, should be treated as undeclared business income. The credit entry in the capital account was to be considered under Section 69.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was incorrect as it applies to unexplained credits, not expenditure. Furthermore, the expenditure was reasonably explained as being met from subsequent sale proceeds, making Section 69C inapplicable. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it to be inadvertent and bonafide. The appeal was then admitted for decision on merits, with the Assessing Officer's addition under Section 68 being the primary point of contention.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the material and giving a proper opportunity of hearing. The dismissal was based on a mistaken impression that adjournment applications were not filed.

The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal as they no longer had any grievance. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 80AC are directory and not mandatory, especially when there is a justifiable and reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return. The Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2013-14, the Tribunal had allowed the claim under Section 80IC for a return filed under Section 139(4), remanding the matter to the AO for verification of the reasons for delay, which were found to be beyond the assessee's control. For the current year, the Tribunal found the facts to be in pari materia. The Tribunal emphasized that the delay in filing the return was due to the actions of the tax consultant, a situation beyond the assessee's control, and that the assessee had substantially complied with the conditions of Section 80IC. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue had not been able to demonstrate any difference in facts from the previous year or that the earlier Tribunal order had been upset. Regarding the low gross profit, the Tribunal held that the AO made the addition without rejecting the books of account or pointing out specific defects, which is not permissible. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the fall in gross profit, attributing it to increased turnover and raw material costs, to be plausible and not controverted by the AO. Therefore, the deletion of both additions by the CIT(A) was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 263 by raising issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. The issues related to labour and wages were not part of the limited scrutiny, and the payments to subcontractors were adequately examined by the Assessing Officer.

The tribunal held that the order passed by the PCIT in the name of a deceased person, when the department was aware of the death, is void ab initio. Therefore, the PCIT's order is quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of grants as income, as the assessee had not claimed the cost of fixed assets as application of income in prior years. The disallowance of depreciation was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings concerning the sale of property for Rs. 23.99 lacs were barred by limitation as they related to the original assessment. Regarding transfer expenses and CLU charges, the Tribunal found the Pr. CIT's conclusion incorrect as evidence was on record. The deduction under Section 54F was restricted as computed by the Pr. CIT.

The Tribunal held that the surrendered income was related to the assessee's regular business activities and should be taxed as business income, not deemed income under Section 69/69A. Consequently, Section 115BBE was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals. The appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as an intermediary or facilitator, raising invoices and disbursing payments received from Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. to the Truck Operator Union. The primary responsibility for deducting TDS lay with Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd., not the assessee.