ITAT Raipur Judgments — April 2022

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee withdrew the appeal as no adverse inferences were drawn in the subsequent assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary order was unsustainable as it was based solely on an audit objection without independent findings and lacked tangible material. The PCIT's order was quashed for failing to appreciate that the AO had already conducted necessary inquiries.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to a lack of proper inquiry into significant bank deposits. The PCIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was found to be sustainable in law.

The tribunal noted that the assessee's application under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme was admitted and the disputed tax liability was discharged. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received was in the nature of a capital receipt, as it was paid for the cancellation of an MOU which resulted in the loss of the assessee's source of income and impaired its profit-making structure. Therefore, it was not exigible to tax.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and conducted necessary verifications before accepting the assessee's explanation. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received was in the nature of a capital receipt, as it was paid for the cancellation of an MOU which resulted in the loss of the assessee's source of income and impaired its profit-making structure. Therefore, it was not exigible to tax.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of 20% of 'Final Settlement Expenses' due to lack of substantiation and 20% of car and telephone expenses as personal use could not be ruled out. The assessee failed to appear for the hearing.

The Tribunal held that the AO had wrongly assumed jurisdiction by making an independent addition when the original reason for reopening was not substantiated with any addition. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 16,48,336 was liable to be vacated.

The Tribunal held that the AO's acceptance of the Section 54 deduction claim without proper inquiry was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, thus upholding the PCIT's order under Section 263. However, it cautioned that the deduction entitlement must be restricted based on the actual sale consideration.

The Tribunal held that the allowability of commission expenses depends on whether they were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, not solely on a corresponding increase in sales. The disallowance was based on an incorrect 'benefit test'.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. It was held that since the order under Section 263 was quashed, the consequential assessment order could not survive independently.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Since the grievance that led to the appeal no longer survived, and the revenue did not object, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the show cause notice did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment or inaccurate particulars) was invoked, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the lower tax authorities made an arbitrary ad-hoc disallowance without specific findings or rationale. The disallowance was not justified as the assessee had provided supporting evidence and the revenue failed to prove the expenditure was not for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that TDS on advance receipts cannot be treated as income solely based on its utilization for tax liability. Income must be computed based on the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary action was unsustainable as it was based solely on an audit objection without independent findings or supporting material. The Tribunal quashed the revisionary order, finding no infirmity in the original assessment order.

The tribunal dismissed the disallowance related to interest paid to NBFCs for non-deduction of TDS, as the assessee failed to provide necessary certificates. However, the ad-hoc disallowance of business expenses was vacated, finding no justification for such arbitrary action by the tax authorities.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries into the cash receipts and closing balance, and the assessee had provided satisfactory explanations and supporting documents. The PCIT's revisionary order was found to be based on surmise and conjecture without refuting material, and therefore, unsustainable in law.