ITAT Raipur Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal held that the advance for land purchase, when accepted by the Revenue in earlier and subsequent years, should be treated consistently. The Tribunal also found that the repayment of a term loan, used for acquiring assets, should be considered an application of income, not a double claim.

The tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not issued by the officer having jurisdiction, and the subsequent officer who completed the assessment failed to issue a mandatory notice. This renders the assessment order void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal dismissed the stay application. However, it remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to mobilization advance and un-deposited service tax, finding no fallacy in the CIT(A)'s reasoning. The addition related to professional tax was also deleted by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the Tribunal. The disallowance for interest and finance charges was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to mobilization advance and un-deposited service tax, finding no fallacy in the CIT(A)'s reasoning. The addition related to professional tax was also deleted by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the Tribunal. The disallowance for interest and finance charges was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Third Member concurred with the Accountant Member, who had set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issues afresh after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to a low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by recent CBDT circulars. The assessees' cross-objections were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to a low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by recent CBDT circulars. The assessees' cross-objections were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to a low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by recent CBDT circulars. The assessees' cross-objections were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to a low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by recent CBDT circulars. The assessees' cross-objections were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that disparity in power consumption alone is not sufficient to reject accounts or make additions without direct evidence of low yield or suppressed sales. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to grant credit for seized cash as prepaid tax.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) erred in determining the fair market value of the land without referring the matter to the Departmental Valuer (DVO). The Tribunal noted that neither authority obtained a valuation report from the DVO, which is crucial when the assessee provides a report from a registered valuer. Relying on judicial precedents like Smt. Pramila M. Desai Vs. DCIT and Thulasimani Ammal Vs. CIT, the Tribunal found that the registered valuer's report cannot be ignored or substituted without obtaining a report from a technical expert like the DVO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the findings of the AO and CIT(A) on the fair market value and remitted the issue back to the AO to refer the matter to the DVO for determination of the fair market value as on April 1, 1981. Regarding the Section 54B deduction, the Tribunal acknowledged that it was not claimed in the return or before the AO. However, citing the principle that Income Tax laws are welfare-oriented and authorities have a duty to guide assessees, and referencing the decision in Pankaj Kumar Agarwal Vs. Income Tax Officer, the Tribunal found that the ingredients for the Section 54B exemption were met. The Tribunal sustained the relief provided by the CIT(A) in allowing the deduction, dismissing the Revenue's ground on this issue. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding brokerage/commission.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to a low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by recent CBDT circulars. The assessees' cross-objections were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that disparity in power consumption alone is not sufficient to reject accounts or make additions without direct evidence of low yield or suppressed sales. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to grant credit for seized cash as prepaid tax.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) erred in determining the fair market value of the land without referring the matter to the Departmental Valuer (DVO). The Tribunal noted that neither authority obtained a valuation report from the DVO, which is crucial when the assessee provides a report from a registered valuer. Relying on judicial precedents like Smt. Pramila M. Desai Vs. DCIT and Thulasimani Ammal Vs. CIT, the Tribunal found that the registered valuer's report cannot be ignored or substituted without obtaining a report from a technical expert like the DVO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the findings of the AO and CIT(A) on the fair market value and remitted the issue back to the AO to refer the matter to the DVO for determination of the fair market value as on April 1, 1981. Regarding the Section 54B deduction, the Tribunal acknowledged that it was not claimed in the return or before the AO. However, citing the principle that Income Tax laws are welfare-oriented and authorities have a duty to guide assessees, and referencing the decision in Pankaj Kumar Agarwal Vs. Income Tax Officer, the Tribunal found that the ingredients for the Section 54B exemption were met. The Tribunal sustained the relief provided by the CIT(A) in allowing the deduction, dismissing the Revenue's ground on this issue. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding brokerage/commission.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to a low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by recent CBDT circulars. The assessees' cross-objections were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal held that furnishing the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee is a jurisdictional requirement. Since the reasons were provided only after the completion of the assessment, the reassessment order could not be upheld.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has consolidated these appeals for hearing. The specific decisions for each appeal are not detailed in this excerpt, but the listing indicates a large number of cases being addressed.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to reassessment proceedings for want of COD approval. It allowed expenses incurred on assets not belonging to the company, following its own prior decision. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding future overburden removal expenses, allowing the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.

The Tribunal has decided various appeals, with the outcome for each case depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented. The judgment addresses multiple issues across these appeals.