ITAT Patna Judgments — May 2023

The Tribunal held that the notices sent by the appellate authority were not properly served on the assessee. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Limited, if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are not paid within the due dates prescribed by those Acts, the deduction cannot be claimed. Amendments to the Act were also considered and found not to help the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was non-speaking and did not adjudicate the issues on merit. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the appeals to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was non-speaking and did not adjudicate the issues on merit. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the appeals to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence and deleting additions without obtaining a remand report from the AO. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence and deleting additions without obtaining a remand report from the AO. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of net profit at 3% of turnover, considering it reasonable given the circumstances. The Tribunal also agreed with the deletion of license fees as a statutory payment necessary for the business.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention that non-audit cannot lead to presumptive taxation is not tenable. The CIT(A) had elaborately dealt with the contentions and given a meritorious finding regarding the applicability of Section 44AD read with Sections 44AA and 44AB.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention that non-audit cannot lead to presumptive taxation is not tenable. The CIT(A) had elaborately dealt with the contentions and given a meritorious finding regarding the applicability of Section 44AD read with Sections 44AA and 44AB.

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, stating that the Assessing Officer should have conducted proper inquiries into the valuation report. The assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not warranted if the recipient has included the income in their return and paid taxes. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Hindustan Cocacola, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not warranted if the recipient has included the income in their return and paid taxes. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Hindustan Cocacola, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the amount paid by the insurance company is as per the policy terms and does not necessarily reflect the entire actual loss suffered by the assessee. Therefore, the debit in the P&L account for the balance loss is a bona fide claim.

The Tribunal found that the cash in hand balances from previous assessment years, which were subjected to scrutiny, sufficiently explained the availability of the cash deposited during demonetization. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to decide the appeal on merit and did not follow the mandate of Section 250(6) by not stating points for determination and reasons for the decision. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the difference was due to the inclusion of service tax in Form 26AS, which the assessee had excluded from its reported gross receipts. The assessee's reconciliation of figures was accepted.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The ex parte dismissal without deciding on merits was not sustainable.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside for not deciding the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal found that the cash deposit was sufficiently explained by the assessee's submissions and the details of cash withdrawals from his bank account. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and discharge certificate was received. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the hearing dates were during the Covid pandemic and the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices. Therefore, the interest of justice requires an opportunity for the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal noted that the hearing dates were during the Covid pandemic and the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices. Therefore, the interests of justice require the assessee to be given an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that the hearing dates were during the Covid pandemic and the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices. Therefore, the interest of justice requires an opportunity for the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that it had admitted its liability in the subsequent proceedings. Consequently, the assessee's appeal against the revision order was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided the names and addresses of all donors, which is sufficient to prove the identity of donors as per Section 115BBC(3) of the Act. Therefore, the donations could not be treated as anonymous.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was dismissed.