ITAT Raipur Judgments — June 2018

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) who deleted the addition. The CIT(A) found that the income offered by the assessee was adequate to cover the expenditure and cash found, and that the AO had misinterpreted the assessee's statement.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee could not produce documents due to the bank sealing the premises, the assessment should be made on the basis of the previous year's net profit ratio. The addition for unpaid service tax was confirmed due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to interest on interest-free loans, citing sufficient capital and reliance on High Court judgments. For Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance, the issue was remanded to the AO for verification of recipient's income disclosure.

The Tribunal found that the source of funds in the bank accounts needed verification. The AO was directed to re-examine the issue of withdrawals from the assessee's disclosed account and decide afresh.

The Tribunal held that while a provision must be made and debited to the P&L account to claim deduction under Section 36(1)(viia), the P&L account submitted by the assessee showed a provision for bad debts. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding the advance discrepancy and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal concerning the travelling expenses, directing the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification. The AO is to check if the recipients of the payments included these amounts in their computation of business income offered to tax.

The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is curative and retrospective, and if the payees have filed their returns and paid tax, the disallowance is not warranted. The CIT(A) wrongly rejected additional evidence filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative, having retrospective effect. Since the payees had filed their returns and paid tax on the income, the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is curative and retrospective, and if the payees have filed their returns and paid tax, the disallowance is not warranted. The CIT(A) wrongly rejected additional evidence filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should get an opportunity to present its case with additional evidence regarding the loan. However, the disallowance of travel expenses was upheld as reasonable.