ITAT Nagpur Judgments — February 2020

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the incriminating documents seized during the search and the nexus between paper companies and the funds introduced. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the incriminating documents seized during the search and the nexus between paper companies and the funds introduced. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the incriminating documents seized during the search and the nexus between paper companies and the funds introduced. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the incriminating documents seized during the search and the nexus between paper companies and the funds introduced. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. On merits, it found that the CIT(A)'s findings were not in sync with judicial pronouncements stating that penalty is not leviable if the payee has already paid taxes. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per the latest CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the issues raised.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. On merits, it found that the CIT(A)'s findings were not in sync with judicial pronouncements stating that penalty is not leviable if the payee has already paid taxes. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the credit received from MSEDCL for power supplied was indeed income of the power plant eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The original assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This decision was based on the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.