ITAT Raipur Judgments — March 2018

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance under Section 40A(3) based on High Court precedent. It also confirmed the partial deletion of unexplained expenditure and the deletion of additions for share capital and brokerage/commission expenses, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and complied with TDS provisions.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263. The audit report for Section 80IB was filed at the appellate stage and was procedural, and the claim had been allowed in previous years. The interest income was also accounted for.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents did not meet the mandatory requirements of a legally enforceable hundi or promissory note. Furthermore, the director of a company named in the documents explicitly denied taking any loans from the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO was unduly influenced by the relationship of the payees. The Tribunal noted that the payments were supported by bills, the recipients declared income under Section 44AD, and the assessee's profitability had actually improved.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. They found that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and that the assessee had provided explanations and evidence to justify the deduction claimed. The Tribunal also noted that where two possible views exist, the AO's chosen view cannot be deemed erroneous for revision purposes.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond four years and the reasons recorded did not demonstrate the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, making the reopening invalid. Furthermore, the assessment under Section 153A was quashed as no incriminating material was found during the search.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming and enhancing the penalty, especially by disregarding the CBDT circular and violating Section 251(2) by enhancing the penalty without notice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it was in accordance with CBDT Instruction No. 5/2013. The AO was directed to verify the correction statement filed by the assessee and pass an order giving effect to the appellate order.