ITAT Nagpur Judgments — November 2021

The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that failure to produce books of accounts does not automatically mean they were not maintained, especially when they were audited and produced during original assessment. The penalty under section 271A was therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that no penalty can be levied under Section 271(1)(c) when the income is assessed on an estimated basis. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.

The Tribunal held that while unrealizable MVAT credit is revenue in nature and its non-realization results in a loss, the crystallization of the liability needs to be proven. As there was no material to demonstrate this crystallization, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 5 to Section 43B has only prospective application. Therefore, belated remittances of employees' PF/ESI contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 5 to Section 43B has only prospective application. Therefore, belated remittances of employees' PF/ESI contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 5 to Section 43B has only prospective application. Therefore, belated remittances of employees' PF/ESI contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 5 to Section 43B has only prospective application as it seeks to nullify judicial precedents and widen the scope of the main provision. Therefore, belated remittances paid before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 5 to Section 43B has only prospective application. Therefore, belated remittances of employees' PF/ESI contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 5 to Section 43B has only prospective application. Therefore, belated remittances of employees' PF/ESI contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that since the disallowance of the deduction under Section 80IB(10) was deleted by the Tribunal itself, the penalty imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was unjustified and liable to be set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case on merits with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure was incurred solely for the maintenance of existing buildings and did not create any new asset. Therefore, it was considered revenue expenditure allowable under Section 37(1).

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present their case on merits with documentary evidence.

The ITAT condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing and to present evidence.

The tribunal noted that the appeal had become infructuous and no adjudication was required. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's wish to withdraw the appeal due to the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that the subsequent application for registration under Section 12AA was granted. Therefore, the current appeal became infructuous.

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, noting that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future examination.