ITAT Patna Judgments — May 2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and directed the CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits. The Tribunal found that the delay was not intentional and was caused by circumstances beyond the assessee's control.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction was limited to the scrutiny issues, and the PCIT's revision based on Section 40A(3) was unwarranted. Furthermore, on merits, the Tribunal found no violation of Section 40A(3) as individual payments did not exceed the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(Appeals) order did not deal with all issues and that the assessee's claim regarding an earlier agreement to sell was not considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the payments of Rs. 1,90,000/- were made on various dates and within the prescribed daily limit of Rs. 20,000/-. Furthermore, these payments were for capital expenditure on which depreciation was claimed, thus Section 40A(3) was not attracted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had made contradictory observations regarding the production of books of account. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were bad in law. It found that the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and examined the seized material, and that the Pr. CIT had not made independent inquiries before assuming jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were bad in law. It found that the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and examined the seized material, and that the Pr. CIT had not made independent inquiries before assuming jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking revisionary powers as the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and examined the seized material. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue, and thus the revisionary proceedings were bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were bad in law. It found that the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and examined the seized material, and that the Pr. CIT had not made independent inquiries before assuming jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiry into the sundry creditors and other transactions. The PCIT's assumption of revisionary powers under Section 263 was therefore unwarranted.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and lacked findings. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, as the assessee had not received a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission payments and correct determination of TDS, ensuring the assessee gets a reasonable opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to provide evidence for correct determination of commission and TDS, and to verify the PAN details of the PACS.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission payments and correct determination of TDS, ensuring the assessee gets a reasonable opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct computation of TDS, ensuring the assessee gets a reasonable opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. This was to allow for proper verification of commission paid and correct determination of TDS, ensuring the assessee gets a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical issues, restored the appeals to the AO. The AO is directed to re-examine the commission payments and the TDS liability after providing the assessee with an opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had restored similar appeals to the AO for verification of commission payments and TDS calculation. Following this precedent, the Tribunal also restored the present appeals to the AO for proper determination of TDS.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restored the appeals to the AO. The AO is to re-examine the commission payments and the TDS liability after affording the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.