ITAT Raipur Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect involved was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue was granted liberty to point out exceptions to this rule.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had decided to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and had provided the settlement order. Therefore, the appeal was to be disposed of as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, it is presumed that interest-free advances are made from such funds. The disallowance of interest expenditure was wrongly made under Section 37(1) instead of Section 36(1)(iii).

The tribunal dismissed the addition on share application money for failure to prove the investor's capacity. It allowed the TDS credit to be adjusted in the year the income was offered. The disallowance of interest was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification based on additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts without pointing out specific defects or infirmities. The Tribunal set aside the rejection of books and directed the vacation of additions made through estimation.

The Tribunal held that filing the audit report in Form 10CCB is a procedural and directory requirement, which can be filed at the appellate stage. It also clarified that a specific certificate of SSI registration is not a precondition for claiming deduction under Section 80IB, as long as the conditions for being an SSI are met.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee already had registration under Section 12AA, which had not been revoked, and considering previous judicial precedents, the denial of 80G approval solely on the grounds of surplus income and minor procedural issues was not justified. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans. It also held that the write-off of security deposit/earnest money deposit was a revenue expenditure and allowable as a bad debt.

The Tribunal held that a simpliciter cash deposit in a bank account cannot be treated as a credit in the assessee's books of account, and therefore, Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable. The addition made by the AO under Section 68 was vacated.

The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 75,000/- was not sustainable as the AO failed to point out any specific defects or provide concrete evidence. However, the disallowance of Rs. 1,72,973/- on account of non-deduction of TDS was confirmed.

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 upheld the addition of interest on refund as it was not offered for tax by the assessee. The lump sum disallowance of construction expenses was also upheld, as the CIT(Appeals) had identified specific expenses that were either unverifiable or incurred in violation of Section 40A(3).

The Tribunal held that information received from the Sales Tax Department does not fall under the exceptions for filing appeals with low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as it did not meet the monetary limit criteria.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals by the department. The department was given liberty to file a miscellaneous application if the tax effect exceeded the limit.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence from the assessee but remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the admissibility of the interest expenses based on the provided certificates, considering the difference in amounts.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the department did not object. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.