ITAT Guwahati Judgments — May 2023

The tribunal held that the absence of DIN in the assessment order and demand notice rendered them invalid and unsustainable in law. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 and various judicial precedents.

The tribunal held that the absence of DIN in the assessment order and demand notice rendered them invalid and unsustainable in law. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 and various judicial precedents.

The tribunal held that the absence of DIN in the assessment order and demand notice rendered them invalid and unsustainable in law. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 and various judicial precedents.

The tribunal held that the absence of DIN in the assessment order and demand notice rendered them invalid and unsustainable in law. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 and various judicial precedents.

The tribunal held that the absence of DIN in the assessment order and demand notice rendered them invalid and unsustainable in law. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 and various judicial precedents.

The tribunal held that the absence of DIN in the assessment order and demand notice rendered them invalid and unsustainable in law. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 and various judicial precedents.

The tribunal held that the absence of DIN in the assessment order and demand notice rendered them invalid and unsustainable in law. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 and various judicial precedents.

The Tribunal found conflicting findings regarding exempt income and restored the issue to the AO to ascertain if any exempt income was earned. If none was earned, no disallowance under Section 14A should be made.

The Tribunal found that an ex-parte order was indeed passed by the CIT(A) despite the assessee's claims of not being given fair opportunities. The Tribunal decided to remand the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee a more effective opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the penalty was deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of long-term capital gains, finding the transactions to be accommodation entries. However, the claim for long-term capital loss was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination of documents.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the penalty was deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the issue required reconsideration by giving the assessees an opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after examining the contentions and potentially calling for a remand report.

The Tribunal held that the issue required reconsideration by giving the assessees an opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after examining the contentions and potentially calling for a remand report.

The Tribunal held that the issue required reconsideration by giving the assessees an opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after examining the contentions and potentially calling for a remand report.

The Tribunal held that the issue required reconsideration by giving the assessees an opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after examining the contentions and potentially calling for a remand report.

The Tribunal held that the issue required reconsideration by giving the assessees an opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after examining the contentions and potentially calling for a remand report.

The Tribunal held that the issue required reconsideration by giving the assessees an opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after examining the contentions and potentially calling for a remand report.

The Tribunal held that the issue required reconsideration by giving the assessees an opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after examining the contentions and potentially calling for a remand report.

The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that, as per the client's instructions, they wished to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a fair opportunity to present documents before the PCIT. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and restored the matter back to the PCIT for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide necessary documents and the CIT(E) was instructed to provide a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF & ESI is justified, following the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenses was incorrect as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the interest-free advances. However, the disallowance of watch & ward and electricity expenses was upheld as the property was not demonstrated to be used for business purposes.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided documentation for the loans, the genuineness of the transaction was not sufficiently proved. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer relied on information without proper verification and the CIT(Appeals) had reproduced judgments without analytical application. Therefore, the orders of the revenue authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal granted the permission sought by the assessee and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.