ITAT Nagpur Judgments — December 2023

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide an appeal on merits and does not have the power to dismiss it for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1)(a)(v) was not sustainable as this provision was inserted with prospective effect from 01.04.2021, while the assessment year in question was 2019-2020. Therefore, the disallowance made by the CPC processing on 29.05.2020 was not legally valid.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of cash deposits as undisclosed income, finding the assessee's explanation that the cash belonged to a company and was for business expenditure to be unsubstantiated. For one assessment year, the addition was restricted to the verified amount of cash deposits.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the assessee had conclusively established the distance of the land from the municipal limits. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after obtaining a remand report.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of cash deposits as undisclosed income, finding the assessee's explanation that the cash belonged to a company and was for business expenditure to be unsubstantiated. For one assessment year, the addition was restricted to the verified amount of cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as it was based on a 'change of opinion' by the AO and lacked any new material or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose facts. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeals on merits as required by section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeals on merits as required by section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeals on merits as required by section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeals on merits as required by section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeals on merits as required by section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeals on merits as required by section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that deposit of employees' share of PF and ESIC before the statutory due dates is mandatory for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va). Payment before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is not sufficient compliance.

The Tribunal held that since the Section 263 order itself was quashed, a consequential assessment order based on it could not stand. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in quashing the consequential assessment order.

The tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Therefore, the tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and the revenue's no objection. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va), the employees' share of PF and ESIC must be deposited by the employer before the due date stipulated under the respective Acts. Payment before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is not sufficient.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the COVID-19 pandemic period and the principle of substantial justice. The matter was set aside for de novo adjudication on merits.