ITAT Nagpur Judgments — December 2022

The Tribunal held that the issue of setting off F&O losses against other income is debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under Section 154. The assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal to file a fresh appeal before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to present additional evidence and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The taxpayer was directed to file all necessary evidence at their own level.

The Tribunal held that the liquor retailers/warehouses are state agencies and payments made to them fall under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(b) and 6DD(k) of the IT Rules. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the denial of exemption, agreeing with the lower authorities that the assessee's activities, such as operating a marriage hall and guesthouse, were in the nature of business and not merely incidental to its charitable purposes. The decision relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in New Noble Educational Society vs. CCIT.

The Tribunal held that there was no material on record to show any contractual liability or agreement, oral or written, between the assessee and the payees. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the interest income derived from members/employees is in the nature of business income and eligible for deduction under Section 80P, citing a coordinate bench decision.

The tribunal held that disallowances under Section 36(1)(va) for amounts credited before the due date of filing the return of income are to be sustained, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. However, disallowances of professional tax credited before the due date under Section 43B were deleted.

The Tribunal restricted the addition for cash deposits to Rs. 6,00,000/-, acknowledging the possibility of past savings but not fully accepting the assessee's claim. The addition of Rs. 5,60,000/- was deleted as it attracted penalties under Sections 271D and 271E.

The tribunal held that disallowances under Section 36(1)(va) for amounts credited before the due date of filing the return of income are to be sustained, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. However, disallowances of professional tax credited before the due date under Section 43B were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the loans were availed in cash, making interest payments in cash was a justifiable reason. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40A(3) was deleted.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It rejected the disallowance of renovation expenditure due to lack of evidence but allowed the claim for indexation of renovation expenditure from 31.03.1992 and indexation of the property's cost from the previous owner's acquisition date.

The ITAT restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, as there was no indication that the assessee's non-appearance was intentional or deliberate.

The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution must be deposited on or before the due dates prescribed by the respective statutes to claim a deduction. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd., the assessee is not entitled to the deduction.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided varying explanations for the cash deposit, initially claiming it was from a sister concern, then from agricultural land sale, and finally from withdrawals from his proprietory business. The Tribunal found these explanations unsatisfactory.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the lower authorities. The DVO's valuation was found to be reasonable and not arbitrary, leading to the affirmation of the capital gains addition.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) as the funds were diverted for non-business purposes. The argument of double taxation was rejected as the disallowance was upheld in principle.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the impugned cash credits. Mere routing through banking channels is not sufficient to discharge the onus on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's current grievance was not maintainable as it pertained to an issue that had already been decided in a previous round of appeal. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) of the Act is mandatory, even if the assessee does not explicitly request it. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.