ITAT Raipur Judgments — September 2021

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified as the issue was debatable and the AO had taken a plausible view. Furthermore, the PCIT failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, rendering the revisional order void.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. The Tribunal found that the AO had taken a plausible view in treating the income as capital gains after considering the available facts, and the PCIT had not demonstrated how the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. The Tribunal found that the AO had taken a plausible view in treating the income as capital gains after considering the available facts, and the PCIT had not demonstrated how the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary powers under Section 263 cannot expand the scope of reassessment under Section 147. The AO is not obligated to conduct inquiries on issues unrelated to the reasons for reopening the assessment.

The Tribunal held that the revision proceedings under Section 263 were time-barred as the limitation period should be reckoned from the original assessment orders, not the subsequent search assessment. Since no incriminating material was found during the search related to the LTCG, the Assessing Officer was precluded from making additions in the Section 153A assessment.

The Tribunal held that the revision proceedings under Section 263 were time-barred as the limitation period should be reckoned from the original assessment orders, not the subsequent search assessment. Since no incriminating material was found during the search related to the LTCG, the Assessing Officer was precluded from making additions in the Section 153A assessment.

The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind to the issue of excess stock and found the assessee's explanation for treating it as business income to be reasonable, supported by judicial precedents. Regarding the purchase figures, the Tribunal found justification in the assessee's explanation for regrouping entries and noted that once books of account are rejected, individual entry discrepancies lose relevance.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisional order was bad in law as the Assessing Officer had conducted adequate inquiries and taken a plausible view. The PCIT failed to demonstrate specific inadequacies in the inquiry or that the AO's view was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and the assessment order was not erroneous. The directions for fresh verification were found to be unintelligible and lacking specific grounds for interference.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO for fresh determination. This was to ascertain if the payee had paid the relevant taxes on the disputed interest amount, as per the assessee's submission.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT could not invoke revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 as no incriminating material was seized during the search, and the assessment had attained finality. Completed assessments cannot be disturbed without fresh incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT could not invoke revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 as no incriminating material was seized during the search, and the assessment had attained finality. Completed assessments cannot be disturbed without fresh incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that CSR expenses claimed as business expenditure were allowable, and additional depreciation on power generation was also permissible. The Commissioner's assumption that the assessment order was erroneous was found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT could not invoke revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 as no incriminating material was seized during the search, and the assessment had attained finality. Completed assessments cannot be disturbed without fresh incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified as the Assessing Officer had conducted proper inquiries. The Tribunal found that the issues raised by the PCIT were either not part of the reopening notice or were already examined and accepted.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders based on such approval were void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders based on such approval were void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders based on such approval were void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders based on such approval were void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders based on such approval were void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the AO's view was plausible and consistent with judicial precedents, as two adjoining flats can constitute a single residential house. Therefore, the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not tenable. It found that the Assessing Officer had made a reasonable inquiry, and the share applicants had confirmed the subscriptions under oath.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions under Section 40A(3) as the assessee was not provided with the seized material and thus principles of natural justice were violated. Regarding Section 68 and Section 2(22)(e), the Tribunal found that the source of funds in the lender company was accepted by the Revenue, and the assessee was not a shareholder in the lender company, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in revising the assessment order under Section 263. The AO had conducted sufficient inquiries, and the PCIT's view that the inquiry was inadequate was not sustainable. Inadequacy of inquiry, as opposed to a complete lack of inquiry, is not a sufficient ground for revision under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions under Section 40A(3) as the assessee was not provided with the seized material and thus principles of natural justice were violated. Regarding Section 68 and Section 2(22)(e), the Tribunal found that the source of funds in the lender company was accepted by the Revenue, and the assessee was not a shareholder in the lender company, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions under Section 40A(3) as the assessee was not provided with the seized material and thus principles of natural justice were violated. Regarding Section 68 and Section 2(22)(e), the Tribunal found that the source of funds in the lender company was accepted by the Revenue, and the assessee was not a shareholder in the lender company, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions under Section 40A(3) as the assessee was not provided with the seized material and thus principles of natural justice were violated. Regarding Section 68 and Section 2(22)(e), the Tribunal found that the source of funds in the lender company was accepted by the Revenue, and the assessee was not a shareholder in the lender company, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions under Section 40A(3) as the assessee was not provided with the seized material and thus principles of natural justice were violated. Regarding Section 68 and Section 2(22)(e), the Tribunal found that the source of funds in the lender company was accepted by the Revenue, and the assessee was not a shareholder in the lender company, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions under Section 40A(3) as the assessee was not provided with the seized material and thus principles of natural justice were violated. Regarding Section 68 and Section 2(22)(e), the Tribunal found that the source of funds in the lender company was accepted by the Revenue, and the assessee was not a shareholder in the lender company, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.