ITAT Guwahati Judgments — February 2023

The Tribunal reversed the disallowance of purchase related expenses, finding them genuine. For Section 14A, the matter was remanded for fresh examination to consider only dividend-bearing investments. Disallowance of interest expenditure was also questioned and remanded for proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal reversed the disallowance of purchase related expenses, finding them genuine. For Section 14A, the matter was remanded for fresh examination to consider only dividend-bearing investments. Disallowance of interest expenditure was also questioned and remanded for proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal reversed the disallowance of purchase related expenses, finding them genuine. For Section 14A, the matter was remanded for fresh examination to consider only dividend-bearing investments. Disallowance of interest expenditure was also questioned and remanded for proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal reversed the disallowance of purchase related expenses, finding them genuine. For Section 14A, the matter was remanded for fresh examination to consider only dividend-bearing investments. Disallowance of interest expenditure was also questioned and remanded for proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal reversed the disallowance of purchase related expenses, finding them genuine. For Section 14A, the matter was remanded for fresh examination to consider only dividend-bearing investments. Disallowance of interest expenditure was also questioned and remanded for proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153C can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified.

The Tribunal held that the issue of VAT remission for Section 80IC deduction was covered by the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. The Revenue failed to provide any counter-arguments or binding precedents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

The tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the penalty levied under Section 221 of the Act for the delayed TDS deposits. The assessees failed to provide any valid justification for the delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain an addition of Rs. 20,99,398/-. The CIT(A) had rightly granted relief for the peak credit of the preceding year, which was already accounted for.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's reason for delay was not satisfactory and that the Assessing Officer had rightly invoked Section 271B for levying penalty. The ground regarding the penalty order being prepared before the assessment date was also dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, agreeing that only the net profit on undisclosed sales should be taxed, not the entire sales amount. The profit rate of 3.9% was considered reasonable given the business and past profit rates.

The tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the penalty levied under Section 221 of the Act for the delayed TDS deposits. The assessees failed to provide any valid justification for the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear and raised grounds related to violation of natural justice. Taking a lenient view, the Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide all documents and explanations.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to borrowed satisfaction. It also found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the additions as the assessee had discharged its onus and the source of expenditure was established.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to borrowed satisfaction. It also found that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the additions as the assessee had discharged its onus and the source of expenditure was established.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in picking only the sale consideration of the profitable transaction. The net result of all penny stock transactions, considering both gains and losses, should have been taken into account.

The Tribunal followed a precedent that CBDT circulars enhancing monetary limits for departmental appeals are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.