ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The assessment order passed pursuant to the section 263 order had already been made, accepting the assessee's returned income.

The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT's observations regarding the provision for excess amount payable and the GP/NP ratio were valid, but his observations regarding TDS and Section 43CA were not. The AO was directed to restrict the enquiry to the valid points.

The Tribunal upheld the Principal CIT's order, finding that the AO's assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to a lack of proper inquiry into the source of cash deposits and the cost of sales. The case was set aside for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Since the revised assessment accepted the original income and the appeal was rendered academic, the withdrawal was permitted.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee contributions to welfare funds are not permissible when there is a debatable issue and no contrary decision from the jurisdictional High Court. The Explanations to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee contributions to welfare funds are not permissible when there is a debatable issue and no contrary decision from the jurisdictional High Court. The Explanations to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revision order was unsustainable. It found that the issue was purely legal and no further inquiry was required by the AO. The Tribunal clarified that the Rs. 50 lacs investment limit in Section 54EC was introduced later, and thus, the assessee's claim was valid for the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D was not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. It also noted that the penalty was for a default under Section 269-T, for which no penalty was initiated under Section 271-E.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revisionary order was justified because the AO failed to conduct a proper inquiry regarding Section 50C, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The assessee's objections regarding reopening approval and the applicability of Explanation 2 to Section 263 were rejected.

The Tribunal held that non-receipt of documents by the CIT(A), possibly due to technical glitches, prejudiced the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to a lack of application of mind by the AO. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's audited accounts clearly reflected the sales and costs, and the minimum sales calculation was correctly done by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revisionary order under section 263 was not sustainable. The Pr. CIT had failed to demonstrate how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the difference was not an unexplained investment but an error leading to excess depreciation. It clarified that the addition sustained for the current year would be the excess depreciation, and the closing WDV for subsequent years needs to be corrected accordingly.

The Tribunal found that the opening WDV for the current year matched the closing WDV for the preceding year based on the provided financial documents. Therefore, the excess depreciation claim was justified.

The Tribunal held that for revision proceedings under Section 263 to be valid, there must be circumstances that warrant an inquiry by the AO, which he has failed to make. In this case, no such circumstances were present, and the Pr. CIT had ignored the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's reliance on the Hindustan Coca Cola judgment was unevidenced and without merit, as there was no proof of tax exemption or payment by the societies. The liability to deduct TDS is patent and admitted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's reliance on the Hindustan Coca Cola judgment was unevidenced and without merit, as there was no proof of tax exemption or payment by the societies. The liability to deduct TDS is patent and admitted.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without a valid basis, as the assessees had not sold any land. Since the very foundation of the reassessment was flawed, the revisionary powers under section 263 could not be validly exercised.

The Tribunal is rectifying minor textual errors and omissions in its previous order. These corrections are procedural and do not alter the substantive findings or prejudice either party.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's reliance on the Hindustan Coca Cola judgment was unevidenced and without merit, as there was no proof of tax exemption or payment by the societies. The liability to deduct TDS is patent and admitted.

The Tribunal is rectifying minor textual errors and omissions in its previous order. These corrections are procedural and do not alter the substantive findings or prejudice either party.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without a valid basis, as the assessees had not sold any land. Since the very foundation of the reassessment was flawed, the revisionary powers under section 263 could not be validly exercised.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Since the assessee is withdrawing the appeal, the Tribunal has no further grounds to adjudicate the matter.