ITAT Nagpur Judgments — May 2018

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer for issuing notice under Section 153C was bad in law due to the absence of a valid satisfaction note and incriminating material. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of double disallowances. For the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision that disallowance is not permissible when no exempt income has been earned.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on the Delhi High Court's ruling in CIT vs. SRC Aviation Pvt. Ltd. The court held that 'aircraft' is a broad term encompassing 'aeroplane' and allowed 40% depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without proper justification and in deleting additions without appreciating the assessee's failure to prove the genuineness of transactions and sources of funds.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's interpretation that the payer must be in the business of plying goods carriages to avail the benefit of Section 194C(6) was erroneous. The exemption applies if the contractor furnishes their PAN.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, which was prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Rolta India Ltd., the assessee was not liable to pay advance tax on income computed under section 115JB. Consequently, the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's interpretation of Section 194C(6) was erroneous. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the demands, and the Tribunal upheld this decision by following previous precedents.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's interpretation of Section 194C(6) was erroneous. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the demands, and the Tribunal upheld this decision by following previous precedents.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's interpretation of Section 194C(6) was erroneous. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the demands, and the Tribunal upheld this decision by following previous precedents.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's interpretation of Section 194C(6) was erroneous. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the demands, and the Tribunal upheld this decision by following previous precedents.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), stating that the penalty order does not survive as the underlying addition has been deleted by the ITAT and confirmed by the High Court.