ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — November 2022

The Tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to act as the Assessing Officer, and challenges to jurisdiction must be raised through administrative routes, not appellate proceedings. Several additions made by the AO were upheld, while some relief was granted on specific disallowances.

The Tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to act as the Assessing Officer, as per statutory notifications and amendments. It also upheld additions related to soybean seed shortage, debit notes, hamali expenses, and disallowance of entry tax and penalties.

The Tribunal held that the addition under section 69 was not sustainable as the assessee had provided purchase bills and the source of payment was reflected in audited accounts. Regarding section 80-IA, the Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction as the power plant was used for captive consumption, but the quantum of deduction required determination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not conducted proper enquiry regarding Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and that the Principal CIT's order was justified in principle. However, the Tribunal modified the Principal CIT's order, stating that a de novo assessment was not required.

The Principal Commissioner (PCIT) invoked revisionary powers under Section 263, finding that the AO had failed to verify the source of the cash deposit and that the IDS declaration did not explicitly mention cash. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, finding that the AO's assessment lacked proper inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries regarding the cash deposits and withdrawals, especially the purpose and subsequent return of funds to the firm. The Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was therefore justified.

The tribunal decided to correct specific errors and omissions in its prior order to ensure accuracy. These corrections involve minor textual amendments to improve clarity and precision in the judgment.

The tribunal decided to correct specific errors and omissions in its prior order to ensure accuracy. These corrections involve minor textual amendments to improve clarity and precision in the judgment.

The Tribunal decided to correct minor errors and omissions in its previous order to ensure accuracy and clarity. These corrections do not alter the substantive findings or prejudice either party.

The Tribunal is rectifying minor clerical errors in its previous order to ensure accuracy. The corrections involve adding specific phrases and placing other words in parentheses to clarify the original intent of the judgment.

The Tribunal held that the remuneration paid to the retiring partner up to the date of retirement was allowable. The partnership deed incorporated the provisions of Section 40(b), and the remuneration was calculated based on book profits for the period the partner was active.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to communicate his changed address to the revenue, and therefore, notices were rightly sent to the last known address. The assessee was afforded sufficient opportunities to present his case, and his allegations of non-receipt of notices were found to be without merit.