ITAT Guwahati Judgments — April 2023

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee. To ensure justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the AO.

The Tribunal found that the actual expenses debited to the profit and loss account were Rs. 3,60,664, and the assessee had already suo motu disallowed Rs. 1,88,417. Therefore, the disallowance should be restricted to the remaining amount.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal recalled its previous order, allowing the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection to be re-instituted. Upon re-examination, considering the assessee's calculation of tax effect under Clause-6 of the CBDT Circular, which was below the prescribed limit, the Tribunal ultimately dismissed both the appeal and the cross-objection.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their tax liability under IDS, 2016, even though the last installment was paid after the original due date but before the extended due date. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to verify facts and compute any applicable interest.

The Tribunal held that VAT remission is directly linked to manufacturing activities and qualifies for deduction under Section 80IE. The revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed as it was not justifiable.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was not valid in law as the Assessing Officer had not recorded his satisfaction in the assessment order. Consequently, the penalty imposed was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalties were wrongly levied as the additional income was voluntarily disclosed by the assessee without any incriminating material found during the search. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalties was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the penalties were wrongly levied as the additional income was voluntarily disclosed by the assessee without any incriminating material found during the search. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalties was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the penalties were wrongly levied as the additional income was voluntarily disclosed by the assessee without any incriminating material found during the search. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalties was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of material consumed on an estimated basis was not justified as the assessee's accounts were audited and supported by voluminous records. The Tribunal also found that the Revenue's grounds for appeal regarding Section 80IA(4) were not maintainable as the conditions were met and the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in previous years.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on a disclosure statement under Section 132(4) without corroborative evidence are not sustainable. The assessee's company name was not discernable in the disclosure statement provided.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of material consumed on an estimated basis was not justified as the assessee's accounts were audited and supported by voluminous records. The Tribunal also found that the Revenue's grounds for appeal regarding Section 80IA(4) were not maintainable as the conditions were met and the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in previous years.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of material consumed on an estimated basis was not justified as the assessee's accounts were audited and supported by voluminous records. The Tribunal also found that the Revenue's grounds for appeal regarding Section 80IA(4) were not maintainable as the conditions were met and the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in previous years.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of material consumed on an estimated basis was not justified as the assessee's accounts were audited and supported by voluminous records. The Tribunal also found that the Revenue's grounds for appeal regarding Section 80IA(4) were not maintainable as the conditions were met and the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in previous years.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of material consumed on an estimated basis was not justified as the assessee's accounts were audited and supported by voluminous records. The Tribunal also found that the Revenue's grounds for appeal regarding Section 80IA(4) were not maintainable as the conditions were met and the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in previous years.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on a disclosure statement under Section 132(4) without corroborative evidence are not sustainable. The assessee's company name was not discernable in the disclosure statement provided.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on a disclosure statement under Section 132(4) without corroborative evidence are not sustainable. The assessee's company name was not discernable in the disclosure statement provided.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was without sufficient reason and that the addition made was not supported by evidence. The Tribunal also found the estimation of income by the CIT(A) to be unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was without sufficient reason and that the addition made was not supported by evidence. The Tribunal also found the estimation of income by the CIT(A) to be unsustainable.