ITAT Raipur Judgments — January 2018

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO made ad-hoc disallowances based on presumptions without sufficient evidence. It was also noted that disallowances for personal use are generally not permissible for companies.

For AY 2007-08, the Tribunal held that additions cannot be made de hors incriminating material found during search if the assessment was not abated. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share applicant companies, thus upholding the addition.

For AY 2007-08, the Tribunal held that additions cannot be made de hors incriminating material found during search if the assessment was not abated. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share applicant companies, thus upholding the addition.

The Tribunal held that a mere write-off of debt in the books of account is sufficient to claim deduction as bad debt, following the Supreme Court judgment in TRF Ltd. Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal remitted the issues regarding disallowance for non-deduction of TDS and truck running/transportation expenses back to the Assessing Officer for verification. However, the ad-hoc disallowance on conveyance, car, office, and telephone expenses was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that since the original assessment order was modified by the CIT(A) resulting in income below the taxable limit, and the department did not appeal further, the penalty should be cancelled. The assessee's contention that the penalty was unjustified due to the finality of the quantum appeal was accepted.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, where assessments were not abated, additions could only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. As the Revenue could not show any such material, the appeals for these years were dismissed. Regarding the rejection of books of accounts for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, the Tribunal found that the assessee had produced books of accounts with bills and vouchers, and the AO's reasons for rejection (books not found during search, low profit, sundry creditors exceeding debtors) were insufficient to reject the books. The Tribunal found no defect in the books and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for these years. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous since the assessee had no grievance against the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the additions for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, as the judgment text was incomplete.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, where assessments were not abated, additions could only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. As the Revenue could not show any such material, the appeals for these years were dismissed. Regarding the rejection of books of accounts for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, the Tribunal found that the assessee had produced books of accounts with bills and vouchers, and the AO's reasons for rejection (books not found during search, low profit, sundry creditors exceeding debtors) were insufficient to reject the books. The Tribunal found no defect in the books and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for these years. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous since the assessee had no grievance against the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the additions for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, as the judgment text was incomplete.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, where assessments were not abated, additions could only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. As the Revenue could not show any such material, the appeals for these years were dismissed. Regarding the rejection of books of accounts for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, the Tribunal found that the assessee had produced books of accounts with bills and vouchers, and the AO's reasons for rejection (books not found during search, low profit, sundry creditors exceeding debtors) were insufficient to reject the books. The Tribunal found no defect in the books and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for these years. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous since the assessee had no grievance against the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the additions for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, as the judgment text was incomplete.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, where assessments were not abated, additions could only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. As the Revenue could not show any such material, the appeals for these years were dismissed. Regarding the rejection of books of accounts for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, the Tribunal found that the assessee had produced books of accounts with bills and vouchers, and the AO's reasons for rejection (books not found during search, low profit, sundry creditors exceeding debtors) were insufficient to reject the books. The Tribunal found no defect in the books and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for these years. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous since the assessee had no grievance against the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the additions for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, as the judgment text was incomplete.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, where assessments were not abated, additions could only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. As the Revenue could not show any such material, the appeals for these years were dismissed. Regarding the rejection of books of accounts for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, the Tribunal found that the assessee had produced books of accounts with bills and vouchers, and the AO's reasons for rejection (books not found during search, low profit, sundry creditors exceeding debtors) were insufficient to reject the books. The Tribunal found no defect in the books and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for these years. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous since the assessee had no grievance against the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the additions for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, as the judgment text was incomplete.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, where assessments were not abated, additions could only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. As the Revenue could not show any such material, the appeals for these years were dismissed. Regarding the rejection of books of accounts for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10, the Tribunal found that the assessee had produced books of accounts with bills and vouchers, and the AO's reasons for rejection (books not found during search, low profit, sundry creditors exceeding debtors) were insufficient to reject the books. The Tribunal found no defect in the books and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for these years. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous since the assessee had no grievance against the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the additions for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, as the judgment text was incomplete.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not comply with the AO's notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment. The CIT(A) deleted additions without proper verification. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that once the books of account are rejected and profit is estimated, no further disallowance of a statutory nature is warranted. Therefore, the disallowance of interest paid to NBFCs was not justified.

The Tribunal held that provisions related to capital gains investment should be considered liberally. Despite the delay in depositing the capital gain, the assessee had reinvested the amount in a residential property and completed its construction.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 10 lakhs, is binding on the department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed to have maintained books of account, and the revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision without allowing the AO to verify them. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that for a technical or venial breach of the Act's provisions, no penalty should be levied. Given the Nil income and the assessee's bonafide belief, the penalty for delayed filing was cancelled.

The CIT(A) was justified in holding that the estimated fair market value of the property was Rs. 90,57,200/- for the purpose of calculating deemed capital gain u/s. 50C, despite the assessee paying stamp duties of Rs. 172.71 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 10 lakhs. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that for a technical or venial breach of the Act's provisions, no penalty should be levied. Given the Nil income and the assessee's bonafide belief, the penalty for delayed filing was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that a technical or venial breach of the Act does not warrant a penalty, referencing a Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the penalty levied for the delay in filing the returns was cancelled.

The CIT(A) correctly admitted additional evidence and found that the assessee had substantiated the claim of carrying out agricultural activities. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order and confirmed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, or genuineness of the share applicants, and the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was justified. For other additions related to bogus purchases, the Tribunal found no incriminating material and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance regarding the transfer price of power, as the price charged to the Ferro Division was considered market value. Similarly, disallowances for proportionate common expenditure and Section 14A expenses were also confirmed as deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order regarding fly ash bricks and depreciation on common assets, restoring the AO's additions. The issue of foreign exchange fluctuation loss was remanded to the AO. The CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for share capital expenses and social welfare expenses was upheld, while the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was partly allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee's books of account were audited and no adverse inference was drawn by the AO. The CIT(A) had dealt with the issue and sustained a reduced addition, which the Tribunal found to be justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance regarding the transfer price of power, as the price charged to the Ferro Division was considered market value. Similarly, disallowances for proportionate common expenditure and Section 14A expenses were also confirmed as deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted under a bonafide belief that it was not required to file a return due to its income being below the taxable limit and exempt. There was no dishonesty or negligence, and the delay was due to a reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance regarding the transfer price of power, as the price charged to the Ferro Division was considered market value. Similarly, disallowances for proportionate common expenditure and Section 14A expenses were also confirmed as deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, or genuineness of the share applicants, and the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was justified. For other additions related to bogus purchases, the Tribunal found no incriminating material and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, or genuineness of the share applicants, and the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was justified. For other additions related to bogus purchases, the Tribunal found no incriminating material and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, or genuineness of the share applicants, and the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was justified. For other additions related to bogus purchases, the Tribunal found no incriminating material and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, or genuineness of the share applicants, and the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was justified. For other additions related to bogus purchases, the Tribunal found no incriminating material and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, or genuineness of the share applicants, and the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was justified. For other additions related to bogus purchases, the Tribunal found no incriminating material and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, or genuineness of the share applicants, and the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was justified. For other additions related to bogus purchases, the Tribunal found no incriminating material and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that a technical or venial breach of the Act does not warrant a penalty, referencing a Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the penalty levied for the delay in filing the returns was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to apply a net profit rate of 3.5% on total receipts for disallowance of expenses. It also confirmed the deletion of the addition on cash credit, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient details of the creditors.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without proper cause and in deleting the addition made by the AO. The case was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the issue was covered by previous ITAT rulings which had allowed relief to the assessee on similar grounds concerning non-deduction of TDS on transportation payments.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 10 lakhs. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the LTCG was correct. The assessee inherited the property and was entitled to the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 and indexation, especially since the AO did not dispute the valuation report in his remand report and submitted to consider the case on merits. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had the power to call for additional evidence under Section 250(4) of the Act, and the assessee's reliance on Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah Vs. CIT was appropriate. The CIT(A)'s restriction of the addition for unexplained deposits was also upheld. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered the peak cash deposit, the assessee's age, agricultural income, past savings, and sale of agricultural land to estimate the available savings at Rs. 20,00,000/-. The Tribunal found no cogent material to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings on either issue. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The assessee's cross-objection, being in support of the CIT(A)'s order, was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient material to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings. The CIT(A) had correctly noted that loose papers contained mere scribblings without evidentiary value for making additions under deeming provisions.