ITAT Raipur Judgments — March 2022

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C was bad in law as no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the search. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C was bad in law as no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the search. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that payments made for delay in contract execution, being compensatory in nature, are allowable under Section 37(1). The ad-hoc disallowance of travelling expenses without specific basis was also deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A could be made as the assessee earned no exempt income. It also held that the employees' PF & ESIC contributions deposited before the due date of filing the return were allowable deductions under Section 43B.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions under Section 271AAA(2) by not specifying and substantiating the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. Therefore, the penalty was rightly sustained.

The Tribunal held that a mere addition to income based on estimation after rejecting books of account does not automatically justify a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact default for which the penalty was initiated and imposed.

The Tribunal held that while the addition under Section 68 was justified due to the assessee's failure to substantiate loan genuineness, a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted on such grounds alone. The Tribunal also noted procedural deficiencies in the penalty notice.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on account of bogus trading liability and suppressed sales were no longer surviving after re-adjudication by the AO, the penalty levied on these additions had to be vacated. The penalty on ad-hoc disallowance of manufacturing expenses was also not sustained as it was based on estimation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred by admitting the ER-1 as additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it or rebut it, and without recording reasons for admission.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made ad-hoc disallowances of expenses without any specific basis or material evidence. Such arbitrary disallowances are not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's basis for disallowance, comparing interest on unsecured loans to bank loan rates, was fallacious. It also noted that the same interest rate was accepted in the preceding year.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 13,75,203/- as purchases, agreeing with the lower authorities that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim and likely attempted to offset the surrendered income. The assessee's claim was considered an attempt to inflate expenses with bogus purchase entries.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the difference was not in the nature of income but was an incentive/encouragement to increase turnover, which was later reversed. Therefore, the addition was not valid.

The Tribunal noted that the matter had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and, in the absence of any objection from the Revenue, allowed the appeal to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that no interest expenditure disallowance was warranted as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. The disallowance of management and development expenses was also set aside due to double-counting. An ad-hoc disallowance on telephone and travelling expenses was reduced.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus to prove the nature and source of the loan transactions. The submission of PAN of one lender and the request to summon the lenders for the first time before the CIT(A) were not considered sufficient.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient interest-free own funds to cover its investments in exempt income yielding assets, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted. The disallowance of Rs. 3,99,790/- was vacated.

The Tribunal held that rental income from the godown should be assessed as business income, following its own precedent for subsequent assessment years. The primary object of exploiting the property for commercial activities determines its classification.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the appellant can seek restoration of the appeal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued by the AO was defective as it failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This failure violated the principles of natural justice and statutory obligations.

The Tribunal noted that the matter had been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

Since the matter in issue has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that rental income from the godown should be assessed as business income, following its own precedent for subsequent assessment years. The primary object of exploiting the property for commercial activities determines its classification.

The Tribunal held that rental income from the godown should be assessed as business income, following its own precedent for subsequent assessment years. The primary object of exploiting the property for commercial activities determines its classification.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and held that the disallowance of finance charges was not justified if the deductee had paid taxes and filed returns, as per the proviso to Section 201(1). The ad-hoc disallowances of business expenses were also vacated as arbitrary and lacking proper justification.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and held that the disallowance of finance charges was not justified if the deductee had paid taxes and filed returns, as per the proviso to Section 201(1). The ad-hoc disallowances of business expenses were also vacated as arbitrary and lacking proper justification.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as it failed to bring to tax the sale consideration from property, despite evidence suggesting it was an accommodation entry. Therefore, the revisionary action under Section 263 was justified.

The Tribunal noted the CBDT circulars which set monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's application under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme was prima-facie admitted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive if the scheme resolution fails.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT circular which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit should not be filed or should be withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's VSVA application was admitted and all necessary forms confirming withdrawal and discharge of tax liability were filed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the Vivad se Vishwas application was admitted and the assessee had filed necessary forms confirming withdrawal of the appeal and discharge of tax liability. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the appellant can seek restoration of the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the appellant can seek restoration of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the Vivad se Vishwas applications were admitted and the assessee had filed necessary forms confirming withdrawal of appeals and discharge of tax liabilities. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the Vivad se Vishwas applications were admitted and the assessee had filed necessary forms confirming withdrawal of appeals and discharge of tax liabilities. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.