ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — April 2022

MAHARSHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWA VIDYALAYA, KARONDI,JABALPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE- RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 142/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Apr 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to the CIT(Exemptions)'s order granting approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) to the assessee, as the matter had been settled by a subsequent High Court order.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

ITA 99/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed20 Apr 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the provision for bad and doubtful debts, including those against standard assets, is allowable under Section 36(1)(viia). It also held that the provision for overdue interest on NPAs is allowable under Section 43D, as it aligns with RBI's income recognition norms.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

ITA 100/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed20 Apr 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the provision for bad and doubtful debts, including those against standard assets, is allowable under Section 36(1)(viia). It also held that the provision for overdue interest on NPAs is allowable under Section 43D, as it aligns with RBI's income recognition norms.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

ITA 97/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the provision for bad and doubtful debts, including those against standard assets, is allowable under Section 36(1)(viia). It also held that the provision for overdue interest on NPAs is allowable under Section 43D, as it aligns with RBI's income recognition norms.

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

ITA 19/JAB/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed8 Apr 2022AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the date of dispatch does not determine the date of passing of an order for the purpose of limitation under section 263(2). It also found that the assessee failed to prove that the assessment orders were not signed or released on the date they bore, and that the assessment proceedings were not vitiated by the alleged non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2).

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

ITA 21/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed8 Apr 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the date of dispatch does not determine the date of passing of an order for the purpose of limitation under section 263(2). It also found that the assessee failed to prove that the assessment orders were not signed or released on the date they bore, and that the assessment proceedings were not vitiated by the alleged non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2).

SMT. ANURADHA UPADHYAY,JABALPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

ITA 22/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed8 Apr 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the date of dispatch does not determine the date of passing of an order for the purpose of limitation under section 263(2). It also found that the assessee failed to prove that the assessment orders were not signed or released on the date they bore, and that the assessment proceedings were not vitiated by the alleged non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2).

DIVYA JYOTI SHIKSHA SAMITI,SAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

ITA 15/JAB/2019[N.A]Status: Disposed8 Apr 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that earning profits from educational activities, which are per se charitable, does not disqualify an institution for 80G approval. Discrepancies in accounts are a matter for assessment proceedings, not for denial of 80G approval.

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

ITA 20/JAB/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed8 Apr 2022AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the date of dispatch does not determine the date of passing of an order for the purpose of limitation under section 263(2). It also found that the assessee failed to prove that the assessment orders were not signed or released on the date they bore, and that the assessment proceedings were not vitiated by the alleged non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2).

RUCHI MAHILA MANDAL,CHHATARPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHHATARPUR

ITA 194/JAB/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed7 Apr 2022AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and also failed to pass a speaking and reasoned order. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

GUJRAL HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

ITA 18/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Apr 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 143(1) were not justified as the issue was debatable and there was no contrary decision from the jurisdictional High Court. The Explanations inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

M/S A R TRANSPORT,SATNA vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, WARD 2 SATNA.CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE,BANGALORE, KARNAATAKA

ITA 7/JAB/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Apr 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that adjustments under section 143(1) are limited in scope and cannot be made for debatable issues. The Explanations to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective, not retrospective.

JASUJA ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD,JABALPUR vs ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 62/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Apr 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 143(1) were not justified as the issue was debatable and there was no contrary decision from the jurisdictional High Court. The Explanations inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, CHHINDWARA vs SHRI ALOK RAJPUT, CHHINDWARA

ITA 56/JAB/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Apr 2022AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of most additions, finding the credits to be genuine or properly explained. However, one addition was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification due to procedural issues in admitting additional evidence.