ITAT Guwahati Judgments — March 2023

The Tribunal reduced the addition on undisclosed bank deposits from Rs. 24,94,221 to Rs. 6,43,348 by estimating profit at 4% instead of 8%. The addition of Rs. 60,000 on contract receipts was deleted due to lack of evidence of receipt by the assessee. The addition of Rs. 3,529 on commission income was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record categorical findings to establish concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the assessee's explanation regarding the timing of income recognition was not found to be false, and the assessee had already suffered double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the derivative trading loss claim was not maintainable as it was not challenged in prior proceedings and was not part of the revised assessment. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted due to the absence of tax-free income.

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the assessee, a salaried employee. The Tribunal found that the funds originated from banking channels for the initial property purchase and that the cash received from the developer was a reasonable explanation for the deposit.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that Section 69C could not be applied as payments were made through banking channels and reflected in the books of account. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s appreciation of facts.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds of appeal concerning the claim of agricultural income exemption. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds of appeal concerning the claim of agricultural income exemption. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the investment was out of past savings and loans from relatives, considering the smallness of the amount and the tax exemption limit. The Tribunal held that the lower authorities were not justified in making the addition.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI was rightly made, following the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, the issue regarding deduction under Section 80IE was not raised before the CIT(A) and was restored for adjudication.

The tribunal upheld the disallowance for delayed PF/ESI deposits as per Supreme Court ruling. However, it applied Rule 8 for tea manufacturers, meaning only 40% of the disallowed amount was taxable.

The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI cannot be claimed, even if deposited before the return filing due date, following the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) was neither authorized to declare any Board's circular or notification as ultra vires or illegal, nor did they do so. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd., held that deduction under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of Employees' Contribution to PF cannot be claimed, even if deposited before the due date of filing the return. The condition of depositing on or before the due date is essential for claiming the deduction.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present evidence regarding the source of foreign remittances and interest income.

Since the assessee opted for and was accepted into the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the appeal for the current assessment year has become infructuous. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

The CIT(A)'s order was found to be non-speaking and failed to consider the assessee's explanation and evidence. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction due to a bona fide error or technical glitch, beyond the assessee's control, was unjustified. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction after verification.

The tribunal held that the delay in electronic filing was due to reasons beyond the assessee's control and not due to negligence. The assessee acted diligently by filing a manual return before the due date.

The Tribunal found significant variances between the facts presented by the assessee and those recorded in the assessment order. Issues regarding the taxability of ancestral land sale and the claim of capital loss on plot sales were not examined by the Assessing Officer.

The tribunal held that the search proceedings were legally initiated. While the addition for unexplained firm capital was deleted due to proper reflection in the cash book, the addition for bank deposits was confirmed. The addition for silver jewellery stock was deleted as a meagre amount in the context of overall profits, and the credit card transaction addition was partly sustained on profit element.

The tribunal held that the search proceedings were legally initiated. While the addition for unexplained firm capital was deleted due to proper reflection in the cash book, the addition for bank deposits was confirmed. The addition for silver jewellery stock was deleted as a meagre amount in the context of overall profits, and the credit card transaction addition was partly sustained on profit element.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness of share subscribers, and genuineness of transactions. The Tribunal also found that the seized cash was duly accounted for in the assessee's books and balance sheet.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessment years, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during a search. Since the assessment years were completed and no incriminating material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessment years, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during a search. Since the assessment years were completed and no incriminating material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness of share subscribers, and genuineness of transactions. The Tribunal also found that the seized cash was duly accounted for in the assessee's books and balance sheet.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO. It found that the CIT(A) had considered the assessee's evidence and that the AO had not conducted sufficient inquiries.