ITAT Patna Judgments — October 2024

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment. It found that the earlier reassessment was cancelled due to a procedural defect (non-service of notice under section 143(2)), and the subsequent reopening was to correct this procedural defect, not based on the same set of facts as initially concluded by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60,00,000/- are not to be challenged before the Tribunal, unless specific exceptions apply. This case did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of profit based on the 'Jai Durge' Tally data was unreliable due to the data's inherent defects and lack of corroboration. Regarding the share premium, the Tribunal noted that the capital infusion and investments were made prior to the search period and had been scrutinized by the department in earlier assessments.

The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of profit based on the 'Jai Durge' Tally data was unreliable due to the data's inherent defects and lack of corroboration. Regarding the share premium, the Tribunal noted that the capital infusion and investments were made prior to the search period and had been scrutinized by the department in earlier assessments.

The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of profit based on the 'Jai Durge' Tally data was unreliable due to the data's inherent defects and lack of corroboration. Regarding the share premium, the Tribunal noted that the capital infusion and investments were made prior to the search period and had been scrutinized by the department in earlier assessments.

The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of profit based on the 'Jai Durge' Tally data was unreliable due to the data's inherent defects and lack of corroboration. Regarding the share premium, the Tribunal noted that the capital infusion and investments were made prior to the search period and had been scrutinized by the department in earlier assessments.

The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of profit based on the 'Jai Durge' Tally data was unreliable due to the data's inherent defects and lack of corroboration. Regarding the share premium, the Tribunal noted that the capital infusion and investments were made prior to the search period and had been scrutinized by the department in earlier assessments.

The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of profit based on the 'Jai Durge' Tally data was unreliable due to the data's inherent defects and lack of corroboration. Regarding the share premium, the Tribunal noted that the capital infusion and investments were made prior to the search period and had been scrutinized by the department in earlier assessments.

The Tribunal held that the statement recorded on oath under Section 131, corroborated by the cash recovery, was sufficient to make the addition. The assessee failed to prove the source of the cash.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to insufficient tax effect, as per CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024. The relief granted by the CIT(A) was below the threshold of Rs. 60,00,000/- and did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to conduct independent inquiries before setting aside the assessment order and that the revisionary proceedings were invalid without revising the approval order under Section 153D. Therefore, the PCIT's orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to conduct independent inquiries before setting aside the assessment order and that the revisionary proceedings were invalid without revising the approval order under Section 153D. Therefore, the PCIT's orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to conduct independent inquiries before setting aside the assessment order and that the revisionary proceedings were invalid without revising the approval order under Section 153D. Therefore, the PCIT's orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to conduct independent inquiries before setting aside the assessment order and that the revisionary proceedings were invalid without revising the approval order under Section 153D. Therefore, the PCIT's orders were quashed.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to admit additional evidence, call for a fresh remand report from the AO, and pass a speaking order. The assessee was cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to admit additional evidence, call for a fresh remand report from the AO, and pass a speaking order. The assessee was cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to conduct independent inquiries before setting aside the assessment order and that the revisionary proceedings were invalid without revising the approval order under Section 153D. Therefore, the PCIT's orders were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee was indeed a developer engaged in designing, constructing, and maintaining infrastructure. The claim made in the return filed under Section 153A was considered valid, overriding the initial omission in the Section 139 return.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee was indeed a developer engaged in designing, constructing, and maintaining infrastructure. The claim made in the return filed under Section 153A was considered valid, overriding the initial omission in the Section 139 return.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee was indeed a developer engaged in designing, constructing, and maintaining infrastructure. The claim made in the return filed under Section 153A was considered valid, overriding the initial omission in the Section 139 return.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee was indeed a developer engaged in designing, constructing, and maintaining infrastructure. The claim made in the return filed under Section 153A was considered valid, overriding the initial omission in the Section 139 return.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid and void-ab-initio due to the AO's complete non-application of mind and reliance on borrowed satisfaction. The AO had incorrectly noted the loan amount and the lender, indicating a lack of independent verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's income should be determined under Section 44AD as he was engaged in technical consultancy and his gross receipts did not exceed the prescribed limit. The Assessing Officer's approach was deemed arbitrary and not supported by law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's income should be determined under Section 44AD as he was engaged in technical consultancy and his gross receipts did not exceed the prescribed limit. The Assessing Officer's approach was deemed arbitrary and not supported by law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's income should be determined under Section 44AD as he was engaged in technical consultancy and his gross receipts did not exceed the prescribed limit. The Assessing Officer's approach was deemed arbitrary and not supported by law.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the assessee was the vendee (purchaser), not the vendor (seller). Section 50C applies to the vendor, and Section 56(2)(vii) (deemed gift on property purchase) was not applicable for the assessment year 2012-13.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation as the assessee failed to provide any explanation or supporting material regarding the acquisition and source of funds for the increased block of assets.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined crucial issues like cash deposits during demonetization and other business income, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the seized cash was recorded in the assessee's audited books of accounts and that Section 69A was not applicable. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the CIT(A)'s detailed and reasoned order.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment under Section 147 is permissible only if there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Since no escaped income was determined and no additions were made, the reopening was deemed to be solely for the purpose of circumventing limitation periods for penalties under Sections 271D and 271E.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain the additions, particularly given the short notice periods and the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessment order was deemed unsustainable due to the violation of natural justice.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked adjudication on merits and was passed ex-parte without proper analysis of facts. Therefore, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. The Tribunal held that the Rs. 1,44,000/- was salary paid to an accountant, not professional/technical fees, and thus no TDS was deductible under Section 194J.