ITAT Raipur Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) ignored the detailed capital account workings and balance sheets submitted by the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the AO for reconsideration of the documents and to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT invoked Section 263 without demonstrating that the assessment order was passed without making necessary inquiries or verification. The PCIT's view that further inquiry was needed did not, by itself, make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's order was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not properly consider the evidence that the assessee was a co-owner of only 1/6th share in the property. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received was for the termination of an agency/contract which impaired the assessee's trading structure or resulted in the loss of its source of income. Therefore, it was considered a capital receipt.

The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise had accepted similar explanations and cancelled the excise duty levy. Since this order was not available to the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.

The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise had accepted similar explanations and cancelled the excise duty levy. Since this order was not available to the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.

The Tribunal held that the concession component received by the assessee, acting as an agent for government projects, was not its income. Any surplus was refundable or adjustable, thus not taxable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction. Regarding the husk sales, the Tribunal found the AO's estimation to be without evidence, especially since previous years had no such sales and the nature of husk made estimation difficult.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of the loan creditors' creditworthiness and genuineness, and the Assessing Officer had not conducted independent inquiries to disprove them. Therefore, the additions under Section 68 were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred to make the house habitable should be considered for the purpose of Section 54F. The AO's disallowance based on the house being 'luxurious' or 'comfortable' without specific findings was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred to make the house habitable should be considered for the purpose of Section 54F. The AO's disallowance based on the house being 'luxurious' or 'comfortable' without specific findings was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses under Section 37(1) was made on presumption without proper verification of evidence. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) made an enhancement by disallowing an expense not disallowed by the AO.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for the banking business issue and restored it to the AO for fresh adjudication. For PDS business, it restored the issue to the AO to verify proportionate expenses. For dividend income, it restored the issue to the AO to verify if the dividend-paying entity was a cooperative society.

The Tribunal held that the addition for undisclosed income from loose papers was incorrect as the assessee had provided explanations. It also held that the surrendered income should be treated as business income for computing partner remuneration, overturning the AO's disallowance.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the disallowance of Rs. 1,25,000 on account of expenses, finding the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence. For the provision of expenses, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-calculate the profit based on a specific method, partly allowing the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the expenses with bills and vouchers, and the loans with confirmations, bank statements, and balance sheets. Therefore, the additions made by the lower authorities were unjustified.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of parboiling charges and the addition for suppressed sale of husk, citing previous judgments and lack of evidence. It partly allowed the appeal regarding the valuation of closing stock of gunny bags, allowing some depreciation but not the full claim. The addition for suppression of rice sale value was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents, specifically an Excel sheet, indicated 'cost' and not 'sale value' for the amount in question. The agreement did not specify the amount as sale proceeds of the land.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents, specifically an Excel sheet, indicated 'cost' and not 'sale value' for the amount in question. The agreement did not specify the amount as sale proceeds of the land.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not considered the sale proceeds of properties and that a rectification application was pending. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents, specifically an Excel sheet, indicated 'cost' and not 'sale value' for the amount in question. The agreement did not specify the amount as sale proceeds of the land.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on funds temporarily parked in banks was inextricably linked to the setting up of the project and was a capital receipt, not taxable as income from other sources. This income should be used to reduce the cost of the project and pre-operative expenses.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the transfer pricing adjustment was wrongly made as the transactions were within the arm's length price considering the allowable deviation. The disallowances for travelling and legal expenses were also deleted as the CIT(A) found sufficient details and business connection.

The Tribunal held that the profit estimated by the Assessing Officer at 3% was too high and the assessee's offer of 0.30% was too low. It directed that 0.5% net profit on undisclosed transactions would meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal. It upheld the deletion of disallowance for delayed PF/ESI payments, finding them deposited before the return filing due date. For Section 14A, it modified the CIT(A)'s order, allowing a 2% disallowance on dividend income towards administrative expenses, citing sufficient interest-free funds.