ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — December 2020

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), JABALPUR vs M/S MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK PODDAR COLONY, SAGAR

ITA 137/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Dec 2020AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the gratuity funds were managed by third parties like LIC, not the assessee. Since the money had irrevocably gone out of the assessee's hands for the benefit of employees, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-KATNI vs SMT.NIRMALA PATHAK, KATNI

ITA 2/JAB/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Dec 2020AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since no shares were sold during the assessment year, no capital gain or loss could arise. The source of investment was accepted by the Assessing Officer, and the entire purchase was for two assessment years, with sales occurring in the subsequent year.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs TARUN DEVCON PRIVATE LIMITED, JABALPUR

ITA 18/JAB/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2020AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO's reliance solely on the creditors' income tax returns to assess creditworthiness was incorrect. The Tribunal found that the credits were largely explained by the creditors' existing capital and/or current income, subject to verification of certain claims.

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT & EDUCATION SOCIETY,REWA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXAMPTION), BHOPAL

ITA 22/JAB/2020[-]Status: Disposed28 Dec 2020Remanded

The Tribunal held that passing an order before the scheduled hearing date violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT's order was set aside.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHHINDWARA vs M/S. CENTRAL MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK, CHHINDWARA

ITA 135/JAB/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed10 Dec 2020AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the capital contribution from the government was in the nature of equity or share capital, not a subsidy, grant, or reimbursement for meeting the cost of assets. Therefore, Section 43(1) and Explanation 10 were not applicable, and the depreciation claim was valid.