ITAT Guwahati Judgments — August 2023

The Tribunal held that the JV did not have a contractor-subcontractor relationship with its constituents, thus Section 194C was not applicable. Furthermore, the compensation paid to RAMKY did not fall under the definition of commission under Section 194H.

The Tribunal held that the JV did not have a contractor-subcontractor relationship with its constituents, thus Section 194C was not applicable. Furthermore, the compensation paid to RAMKY did not fall under the definition of commission under Section 194H.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order on all three issues lacked proper adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matters back for de novo adjudication after conducting necessary inquiries.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not take two views on stock valuation, as the opening stock for AY 2017-18 was accepted based on the previous year's valuation. Regarding Section 40A(3), the Tribunal noted that the genuineness of payments was not doubted and the purpose of the section is preventive, not punitive.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Limited, held that employees' contribution must be deposited within the due dates under the PF & ESI Acts to be eligible for deduction. Consequently, the earlier order allowing the deduction was recalled.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Limited, held that employees' contribution must be deposited within the due dates under the PF & ESI Acts to be eligible for deduction. Consequently, the earlier order allowing the deduction was recalled.

The Tribunal held that VAT remission, being directly linked to revenue and received after commencement of business, qualifies as a revenue receipt. Following its own previous decisions and the 'purpose test' from Supreme Court rulings, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is correct, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The assessee's contention that the jurisdictional High Court's earlier view should prevail was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is correct. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that the due date for such deposits is as per section 36(1)(va) and not the extended due date under section 43B.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is correct. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that the due date for such deposits is as per section 36(1)(va) and not the extended due date under section 43B.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer (AO) had a borrowed satisfaction and did not apply his mind to the information. The material relied upon was not confronted to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based on 'dumb documents' (impounded material) without corroborative evidence and without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the source of the documents. This violated principles of natural justice.