ITAT Nagpur Judgments — November 2022

The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to Provident Fund must be deposited before the due date specified in the respective statute. Since the assessee admitted to not depositing the amount before the due date, the disallowance was justified.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) regarding 30% disallowance is prospective, and the addition of interest income on interest-free advances was deleted as it was not prescribed under the relevant sections of the Act.

The tribunal upheld the rejection of the Section 11 exemption claim due to the absence of Section 12AA registration. However, the issue regarding the assessment rate was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to issue a mandatory Section 143(2) notice after the assessee's correspondence. Therefore, the impugned assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this request.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not actually debited and claimed the service tax as an expense. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 43B for want of actual payment was not applicable. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that additions involving a partner's capital account of a firm should be made in the hands of the partner, not the firm. Therefore, the additions made to the firm's capital account were deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not actually debited and claimed the service tax as an expense. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 43B for want of actual payment was not applicable. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently explained the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans advanced to Shri Rajput. This was based on the fact that the CIT(A) in Shri Rajput's case had already found these loans to be genuine and deleted the additions. Furthermore, the assessees' own financial records, including business turnover and other declared loans, exceeded the amounts added by the Revenue.

The tribunal held that income from godown rent earned by the assessee society is not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, as it does not pertain to the primary activities of a co-operative society.

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 by the respective statutes, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently explained the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans advanced to Shri Rajput. This was based on the fact that the CIT(A) in Shri Rajput's case had already found these loans to be genuine and deleted the additions. Furthermore, the assessees' own financial records, including business turnover and other declared loans, exceeded the amounts added by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently explained the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans advanced to Shri Rajput. This was based on the fact that the CIT(A) in Shri Rajput's case had already found these loans to be genuine and deleted the additions. Furthermore, the assessees' own financial records, including business turnover and other declared loans, exceeded the amounts added by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently explained the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans advanced to Shri Rajput. This was based on the fact that the CIT(A) in Shri Rajput's case had already found these loans to be genuine and deleted the additions. Furthermore, the assessees' own financial records, including business turnover and other declared loans, exceeded the amounts added by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently explained the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans advanced to Shri Rajput. This was based on the fact that the CIT(A) in Shri Rajput's case had already found these loans to be genuine and deleted the additions. Furthermore, the assessees' own financial records, including business turnover and other declared loans, exceeded the amounts added by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that additions involving a partner's capital account of a firm should be made in the hands of the partner, not the firm. Therefore, the additions made to the firm's capital account were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently explained the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans advanced to Shri Rajput. This was based on the fact that the CIT(A) in Shri Rajput's case had already found these loans to be genuine and deleted the additions. Furthermore, the assessees' own financial records, including business turnover and other declared loans, exceeded the amounts added by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently explained the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans advanced to Shri Rajput. This was based on the fact that the CIT(A) in Shri Rajput's case had already found these loans to be genuine and deleted the additions. Furthermore, the assessees' own financial records, including business turnover and other declared loans, exceeded the amounts added by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently explained the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans advanced to Shri Rajput. This was based on the fact that the CIT(A) in Shri Rajput's case had already found these loans to be genuine and deleted the additions. Furthermore, the assessees' own financial records, including business turnover and other declared loans, exceeded the amounts added by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently explained the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans advanced to Shri Rajput. This was based on the fact that the CIT(A) in Shri Rajput's case had already found these loans to be genuine and deleted the additions. Furthermore, the assessees' own financial records, including business turnover and other declared loans, exceeded the amounts added by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently explained the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loans advanced to Shri Rajput. This was based on the fact that the CIT(A) in Shri Rajput's case had already found these loans to be genuine and deleted the additions. Furthermore, the assessees' own financial records, including business turnover and other declared loans, exceeded the amounts added by the Revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction under Section 80IB(10) as the assessee failed to provide evidence of fulfilling the conditions for the deduction, similar to a previous assessment year.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal against the revision order passed by the PCIT under section 263, as they intended to contest the consequential assessment order before the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that merely making incorrect claims, which are disallowed by the AO, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following the Supreme Court decision in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., no penalty can be imposed if all facts and claims were disclosed.

The Tribunal held that while the disallowance of exemption and surrender of income were facts, they did not automatically attract penalty. The Tribunal relied on the principle that quantum and penalty are parallel proceedings and cited CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (capital, agricultural income, profit) which exceeded the interest-free advances made. Therefore, it was presumed that the advances were made out of these interest-free funds.

The Tribunal found that the facts regarding the nature of the Rs. 9,75,130/- were not clearly established by the lower authorities. Therefore, the case was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the low tax effect, which fell below the enhanced monetary limit for appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT's circular revising the monetary limits for appeals and clarifying that these limits apply to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the assessee had accepted the addition during assessment proceedings and agreed not to file an appeal. Even on merits, the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the purchases.

The Tribunal found that the reasons provided for the delay did not adequately explain why the appeal was not filed within the stipulated time. The events cited occurred much before the period of delay.

The Tribunal held that commission earned on the collection of electricity bills and interest earned on FDs and savings bank accounts are part of the business activities of the cooperative society and are therefore exempt from tax under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's written submissions and without independent application of mind. This violated principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide material evidence regarding the fair market value of the services rendered by the employee. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40A(2)(b) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to address the assessee's contention that the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the DVO for determining the fair market value when the stamp duty value was objected to. Therefore, the matter needs to be re-adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order as the stamp duty value was higher than the sale consideration and the assessee did not provide a plausible explanation for the discrepancy or argue that the fair market value was lower.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on fixed deposits by a cooperative society, even from surplus funds, is attributable to its business activities and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that commission earned on the collection of electricity bills and interest earned on FDs and savings bank accounts are part of the business activities of the cooperative society and are therefore exempt from tax under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that commission earned on the collection of electricity bills and interest earned on FDs and savings bank accounts are part of the business activities of the cooperative society and are therefore exempt from tax under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that if no notices were properly served on the assessee, then no penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could be imposed or confirmed. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of proper service of notices.

The Tribunal held that if no notices were properly served on the assessee, then no penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could be imposed or confirmed. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of proper service of notices.

The Tribunal held that if no notices were properly served on the assessee, then no penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could be imposed or confirmed. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of proper service of notices.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.