ITAT Raipur Judgments — February 2022

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed in violation of natural justice as it was issued before the expiry of the time allowed for compliance. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the notice before the finalization of assessment, thus not constituting a complete failure.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed in violation of natural justice as it was issued before the expiry of the time allowed for compliance. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the notice before the finalization of assessment, thus not constituting a complete failure.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed in violation of natural justice as it was issued before the expiry of the time allowed for compliance. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the notice before the finalization of assessment, thus not constituting a complete failure.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted due inquiries into the cash deposits and substantiated the sources. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order was found to be infirm.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed in violation of natural justice as it was issued before the expiry of the time allowed for compliance. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the notice before the finalization of assessment, thus not constituting a complete failure.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed in violation of natural justice as it was issued before the expiry of the time allowed for compliance. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the notice before the finalization of assessment, thus not constituting a complete failure.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed in violation of natural justice as it was issued before the expiry of the time allowed for compliance. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the notice before the finalization of assessment, thus not constituting a complete failure.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed in violation of natural justice as it was issued before the expiry of the time allowed for compliance. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the notice before the finalization of assessment, thus not constituting a complete failure.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, and the CIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, and the CIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, and the CIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, and the CIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, and the CIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, and the CIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, and the CIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, and the CIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, and the CIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, and the CIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, and the CIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, and the CIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, and the CIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, and the CIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, and the CIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, and the CIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the reasoning of both the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) was not acceptable. Since the outstanding liability did not pertain to the year under consideration, no addition could be made under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that a bank account cannot be considered as 'books of account' of the assessee. Therefore, an addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act cannot be made solely on the basis of cash deposits in a bank account.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest expenditure was warranted as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover its investments. For administrative expenses, the disallowance was to be reworked considering only investments that yielded exempt income.

The Tribunal held that since the payee had accounted for the income and paid taxes, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable, especially in light of the second proviso to the section and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that while a presumption exists for documents found during a search, it is rebuttable. Since no direct nexus was established between the incriminating document and the assessee, the addition could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to apply his mind to the material and acted on borrowed satisfaction, rendering the reopening under Section 147 invalid. Furthermore, the addition was made without providing the assessee with details of the alleged bogus purchases and without a nexus to the reasons for reopening.

The Tribunal held that the reasoning of both the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) was not acceptable. Since the outstanding liability did not pertain to the year under consideration, no addition could be made under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that a decline in profit ratio alone cannot justify disallowance and that the AO's observation about vouchers was generalized. The Tribunal found no basis for the ad-hoc disallowance.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on the Mumbai flat should be allowed due to consistent treatment in preceding and succeeding years. It also held that the disallowance of interest expenditure was not warranted as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover investments in exempt income-yielding shares.

The Tribunal heard both parties and perused the withdrawal application. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the mistake in the revised return was apparent and glaring, making it rectifiable under Section 154. The orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the payee had accounted for the interest received and paid the corresponding taxes, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable, especially in light of the second proviso to the section and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that while a presumption exists for documents found during a search, it is rebuttable. Since no direct nexus was established between the incriminating document and the assessee, the addition could not be sustained.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for withdrawal based on the assessee's application and the revenue's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue due to low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the appeal by filing a miscellaneous application.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO failed to establish a nexus between the search material and the assessee's transaction. The AO relied on third-party statements without independent inquiry or cross-examination.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for withdrawal based on a written application and the revenue's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that while the AO was correct in disallowing the claim not made in the return, the appellate authorities have the power to entertain such claims. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) was justified in allowing the deduction.