ITAT Raipur Judgments — January 2019

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The appeal was dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that since the employee's contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return, no disallowance was warranted. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision on an identical issue.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable when no exempt income has been earned during the year. Furthermore, if the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds (like share capital and reserves) exceeding the investment amount, no disallowance of interest is warranted.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable when no exempt income has been earned. It also noted that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the investment, making the disallowance unjustified.

The Tribunal held that when deposits are accepted as unrecorded sales, only the profit element embedded in those sales should be brought to tax, not the entire sale proceeds. A 10% Gross Profit (GP) on undisclosed sales was deemed to be added to the income.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without expressing an opinion on the merits. This was based on a CBDT circular stating that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed before the ITAT.

The Tribunal held that when deposits are accepted as unrecorded sales, only the profit element embedded in those sales should be brought to tax, not the entire sale proceeds. A 10% Gross Profit (GP) on undisclosed sales was deemed to be added to the income.

The Tribunal held that when deposits are accepted as unrecorded sales, only the profit element embedded in those sales should be brought to tax, not the entire sale proceeds. A 10% Gross Profit (GP) on undisclosed sales was deemed to be added to the income.

The ITAT allowed the commission on sales claim based on consistency with previous years and lack of new evidence. For other expenses, the disallowance was reduced to 10% based on consistency and lack of specific findings by revenue authorities.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of sales return was not justified as it was a representation issue. The disallowance of freight charges was also deleted, relying on a High Court decision. The addition for unexplained investment in stock was deleted as an inflated stock statement to a bank for credit facilities does not warrant such an addition.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances under Section 40A(3) for cash payments were confirmed as the assessee failed to provide exceptional circumstances justifying such payments. For the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the matter was remanded to the AO for verification. Regarding interest-free advances, the matter was also remanded to the AO for detailed verification of business expediency and source of funds.

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on presumption and conjecture, with no evidence of actual sale of husk. Following a co-ordinate bench decision, the addition was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act was not applicable to the assessee's activities, as they were not conducted solely on commercial lines with a profit motive. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12.

The Tribunal found no fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings, especially since similar issues had been decided in favour of the assessee in prior appeals before the CIT(A) and the ITAT. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was not valid as there was no new material or tangible evidence to suggest escapement of income. The reassessment was based on a change of opinion, which is not a valid ground for reopening.

The Tribunal held that since the facts and circumstances were identical to previous assessment years where the grant was accepted as a capital receipt, the revenue could not arbitrarily change its stance. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of low tax effect, citing CBDT circulars. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 8,00,000, considering the assessee's historical profit rates and the CIT(A)'s partial relief.

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the CIT(Appeals)'s file. The assessee was directed to present the case on merits with necessary documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act was not applicable to the assessee's activities, as they were not conducted solely on commercial lines with a profit motive. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the CIT(Appeals)'s file. The assessee was directed to present necessary documentary evidence and appear before the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of low tax effect, citing CBDT circulars. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 8,00,000, considering the assessee's historical profit rates and the CIT(A)'s partial relief.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. The assessee's appeal was allowed as the substantive additions in the co-related case were set aside, rendering the protective additions unsustainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. The assessee's appeal was allowed as the substantive additions in the co-related case were set aside, rendering the protective additions unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that at the time of granting registration under Section 12AA, the CIT should only examine the objects of the trust and the genuineness of its activities, not the applicability of Section 13(1)(b) or the accounting of donations. Furthermore, since the trust had both charitable and religious objects, Section 13(1)(b) was not applicable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Since the Revenue had no objection and the assessee demonstrated no adverse consequence, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that additions based on documents found in premises not belonging to the assessee, without any corroborative evidence linking the assessee to the transactions, are unsustainable. Loose sheets and entries therein are not admissible as sole evidence to charge a person with liability.

The Tribunal held that additions based on documents found in premises not belonging to the assessee, without any corroborative evidence linking the assessee to the transactions, are unsustainable. Loose sheets and entries therein are not admissible as sole evidence to charge a person with liability.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee has been granted registration under Section 12AA and it remains uncancelled, the CIT should not reject an application for approval under Section 80G on the grounds that the activities are not genuine. Therefore, the CIT's order was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the period for investment in new agricultural land should be counted from the date of the sale agreement, not the registration date, as per Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal also emphasized the Assessing Officer's duty to guide assessees towards eligible deductions.