ITAT Nagpur Judgments — October 2022

The Tribunal held that the interest earned on surplus funds invested in fixed deposits is attributable to the primary business activity of providing credit facilities. Therefore, such interest income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B was condoned by CBDT Circular No. 10/2019, as the audit report was obtained before filing the return. Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the lower authorities was not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing 'Vis-Major' reasons. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside as it did not adjudicate the case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction for employee's contribution to PF/ESI if it is not deposited before the due dates specified under the respective statutes, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that if the difference between the value determined by the DVO and the sale consideration is less than 10%, no addition is warranted. Following this principle, the addition made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reference to the DVO under Section 55A(b)(ii) was not justified when the case was covered by Section 55A(a), which allows reference only if the assessee's adopted value is less than the FMV. Since the assessee's value was higher, the AO lacked jurisdiction for the reference.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction for employee's contribution to PF/ESI if it is not deposited on or before the due dates stipulated by the respective statutes, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.

The tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make the addition as he failed to follow CBDT instructions (No. 20/2015 and 5/2016) which mandate prior approval from PCIT/CIT to convert a limited scrutiny case into a complete scrutiny. Therefore, the assessment order and the addition made were deemed invalid and set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation or evidence to the AO or CIT(A) regarding the acquisition of money. However, to provide an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction for employee's contribution to PF/ESI if it is not deposited on or before the due dates prescribed under the respective statutes.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not bring any material on record to prove that the interest-bearing loans were not used for business purposes. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition.

The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 5,50,000/- as peak cash deposit. However, the Tribunal found this amount incorrect and modified it to Rs. 1,70,257/-, which was the closing balance on a specific date as per the bank statement.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was willing to furnish all details for fresh examination by the CIT(A). The revenue did not object to remanding the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, it could not be applied retrospectively to defaults committed before this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was not applicable to the assessment year 2013-14 (financial year 2012-13) as the default occurred before the amendment's effective date. Therefore, the levy of fee under Section 234E was not justified.

The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as per the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c), is applicable only after June 1, 2015. Therefore, for defaults prior to this date, such a levy is not justified.

The tribunal held that the amendment inserting Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, it was not applicable to defaults committed for periods prior to this date, such as the quarters in question.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was not applicable to the assessment year 2013-14 (financial year 2012-13) as the default occurred before the amendment's effective date. Therefore, the levy of fee under Section 234E was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was not applicable to the assessment year 2013-14 (financial year 2012-13) as the default occurred before the amendment's effective date. Therefore, the levy of fee under Section 234E was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was not applicable to the assessment year 2013-14 (financial year 2012-13) as the default occurred before the amendment's effective date. Therefore, the levy of fee under Section 234E was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, it could not be applied retrospectively to defaults committed before this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, it could not be applied retrospectively to defaults committed before this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, it could not be applied retrospectively to defaults committed before this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was not applicable to the assessment year 2013-14 (financial year 2012-13) as the default occurred before the amendment's effective date. Therefore, the levy of fee under Section 234E was not justified.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to allow them to lead fresh evidence.

The Tribunal held that while Section 194DA requires TDS on the gross sum, Section 143(1)(a)(vi) allows adjustment for 'income' appearing in Form 26AS. The taxable income is the sum received minus the premium paid.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was inserted with effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for defaults prior to this date, the levy was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, it could not be applied retrospectively to defaults committed before this date.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was inserted with effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for defaults prior to this date, the levy was not justified.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was inserted with effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for defaults prior to this date, the levy was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, it could not be applied retrospectively to defaults committed before this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, it could not be applied retrospectively to defaults committed before this date.

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

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was inserted with effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for defaults prior to this date, the levy was not justified.

The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E, as per the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c), could only be applied for defaults committed after June 1, 2015. Since the default in question pertained to an earlier period, the levy was not justified.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for defaults prior to this date, the levy was not justified.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was inserted with effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for defaults prior to this date, the levy of fee under Section 234E was not justified.

The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was inserted with effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for defaults prior to this date, the levy was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, it could not be applied retrospectively to defaults committed before this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, it could not be applied retrospectively to defaults committed before this date.

The Tribunal, following the precedent set by the Pune Bench, allowed the deduction under Section 80P on interest income earned from bank term deposits. This decision favored the assessee's claim over the Assessing Officer's disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P on interest income from banks is no longer res integra. Following a series of orders, the Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee.

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

The Tribunal held that fees levied under Section 234E for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, are unsustainable due to the absence of an enabling provision (Section 200A(1)(c)). However, for defaults occurring after June 1, 2015, the levy is confirmed as mandatory.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E was unsustainable for defaults occurring prior to the enactment of the enabling provision, Section 20A(1)(c). However, for defaults occurring after the effective date of Section 20A(1)(c), the levy was considered mandatory and not subject to deletion on grounds of reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that fees levied under Section 234E for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, are unsustainable due to the absence of an enabling provision. However, for defaults occurring after June 1, 2015, the levy is confirmed as mandatory.

The Tribunal held that fees levied under Section 234E for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, are unsustainable due to the absence of an enabling provision (Section 200A(1)(c)). However, for defaults occurring after June 1, 2015, the levy is confirmed as mandatory.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be charged for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that while Section 234E was introduced for late filing of statements, the specific enabling provision, Section 20A(1)(c), was effective only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levies for defaults prior to this date were unsustainable.