ITAT Patna Judgments — July 2024

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to verify the assessee's claim regarding the actual cash deposit. If the assessee's claim is found correct, the reopening proceedings, initiated after four years on potentially wrong reasons, should be quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO failed to establish the additions. The AO relied on police diary entries without providing the original diaries to the assessee and without proper verification.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO failed to establish the additions. The AO relied on police diary entries without providing the original diaries to the assessee and without proper verification.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO failed to establish the additions. The AO relied on police diary entries without providing the original diaries to the assessee and without proper verification.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO failed to establish the additions. The AO relied on police diary entries without providing the original diaries to the assessee and without proper verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The case was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the evidence, call for a remand report from the AO, and then pass a speaking order on merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue because the AO failed to examine the assessee's change in accounting policy regarding rental income. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's action under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The case was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the evidence, call for a remand report from the AO, and then pass a speaking order on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The case was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the evidence, call for a remand report from the AO, and then pass a speaking order on merits.

The Tribunal held that assembling sophisticated electronic devices like X-ray and ultra-sound machines constitutes manufacturing. It relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments that consider assembly as a manufacturing activity, leading to a new product with a distinct name and use.

The Tribunal held that assembling sophisticated electronic devices like X-ray and ultra-sound machines constitutes manufacturing activity. It further noted that consistent allowance of deduction in prior and subsequent years strengthens the claim.

The Tribunal held that the entire deposits cannot be treated as income without proper estimation, especially when the assessee claimed to be carrying on a business. The case was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case and supporting documents.

The Tribunal found that if the deposit was indeed Rs. 5,45,000/- as claimed by the assessee, no addition could be made on a wrong assumption of fact. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal mechanically without applying its mind. The revision order directed a de novo assessment, meaning all issues were open for consideration by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that if the deposit was indeed Rs. 2,50,000/-, no addition would be warranted as it falls within prescribed limits. However, the AO's order stated Rs. 12,50,000/- was deposited. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as there was an apparent escapement of income due to an excess claim of deduction, not a mere change of opinion. The assessee's objections were considered vague and lacked merit.

The Tribunal held that the increase in capital was due to the omission of complete personal assets in the preceding year's return, not a fresh addition. The financials for the current year were found to be satisfactory.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of freight payments back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the assessee provides complete party-wise details and declarations. The addition of Rs. 45,000 for the demonetization deposit was deleted based on a bank certificate indicating the information was erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was non-speaking and lacked proper investigation on the issues for which the case was selected for scrutiny. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner rightly invoked Section 263 to set aside the assessment for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had participated in proceedings related to the order and was aware of its passing. Therefore, the explanation for the delay was not considered sufficient, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was framed unusually by blindly relying on the survey report without verification or providing the material to the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty paid for violations of Excise and VAT laws is not an allowable business deduction. Allowing such a deduction would negate the purpose of imposing penalties under those laws.