ITAT Raipur Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal held that the entire purchase amount of bogus purchases cannot be added. Instead, the addition should be limited to the extent of the Gross Profit (GP) rate on purchases, similar to genuine purchases.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not presume malpractices in the current year based solely on past admissions without any supporting evidence for the current year. Each year's assessment is separate.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not presume malpractices in the current year based on past conduct without any evidence. Each year's assessment is separate, and past facts cannot be extrapolated without supporting evidence. The Tribunal also found the Standard Operating Rate (SoR) cited by the AO to be irrelevant for determining profit margins.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A could be made in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. The disallowance was vacated based on settled legal position and Supreme Court/High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that information received from the sales tax department does not fall under the exceptions listed in the CBDT circulars for not pressing appeals below the monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as it did not meet the threshold for maintainability.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done in accordance with CBDT Circulars which specify monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in this case was below the prescribed limit.

The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is statutorily obligated to decide the appeal on merits after applying his mind to all issues. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that a short deduction of TDS due to a difference in opinion on the nature of payment does not trigger Section 40(a)(ia) for disallowance. The assessee can be declared in default under Section 201, but disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not permissible in such cases.

The Tribunal held that appeals shall not be filed before the ITAT if the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit specified by CBDT circulars. In this case, as the tax effect was below the limit, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was bad in law as it failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the AO failed to specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) in the show cause notice, thus violating principles of natural justice. The penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed by the Revenue involving a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed based on the CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning interest income. Therefore, it was allowable as a deduction under Section 57(iii) of the Act.

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 considered the appeal against the rejection of the trust's application for registration. The grounds of appeal challenged the CIT(E)'s decision as arbitrary and unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on a mere 'change of opinion' and not on any tangible material. Therefore, the AO had not validly assumed jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on share capital temporarily parked in banks before commencement of business is a capital receipt and should be set off against pre-operative expenses, not taxed as income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that the 'recharge commission expenses' were in reality discounts received from the service provider and passed on to retailers. Therefore, they were not liable for TDS under Section 194H, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's professional status and past income, suggesting accumulated savings could be a source. However, due to the lack of a clear explanation, the addition was restricted to Rs. 1,60,050/-.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances were made on an ad-hoc basis without specific instances of infirmity. It also noted that a company, being an inanimate person, cannot have personal expenses, thus vacating the disallowances.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on a mere 'change of opinion' and not on any fresh material, thus invalidating the AO's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(Appeals) that charges for facilities like parking and maintenance, which were part of the approved housing project, were eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing documentary evidence for share capital and loans. The AO's adverse inferences based on non-compliance by one lender were deemed unjustified.

The tribunal allowed credit for TDS on a pro-rata basis as income is offered. It directed the AO to allow deduction for interest on borrowed funds used for machinery, modifying the CIT(A)'s order. The disallowance of vehicle depreciation and expenses was vacated.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the mandatory 'reasons to believe' before issuing the notice under Section 148. This failure vitiated the assumption of jurisdiction and rendered the reassessment order invalid.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on share capital temporarily parked in banks before commencement of business is a capital receipt and should be set off against pre-operative expenses, not taxed as income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on share capital temporarily parked in banks before commencement of business is a capital receipt and should be set off against pre-operative expenses, not taxed as income from other sources.