ITAT Raipur Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals) order, finding no merit in the revenue's grounds of appeal. The disallowance under Section 80IA was deleted based on a High Court judgment, and the Section 14A disallowance was deleted as no exempt income was earned by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that once registration under Section 12A is granted, the CIT should not reject an 80G application based on the genuineness of activities, as this is already examined. The CIT's role in 80G is not to act as an Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing documentary evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of loans. The AO failed to disprove the claim by conducting independent verifications, thus the addition was unjustified.

The CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition, holding that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion and that the AO had not properly considered the facts and evidence on record. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision.

The CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing details of the share subscriber, including its PAN, address, bank statements, and balance sheets. The tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the assessee had not only proven the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber but also explained the source of the source of funds.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the interest expenses were allowable as they were incurred for business purposes and the cash credit was duly accounted for in the assessee's ledger.

The Tribunal held that since the employee's contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the revenue's appeal had no basis and was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that information received from the Commercial Tax Department does not fall under the exception carved out in the relevant CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that a clerical mistake in depositing TCS with the wrong PAN should not lead to penalization. The revenue authorities can rectify such errors, and the assessee cannot be denied credit for taxes already paid.

The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal as the amount in question was already included in the total income computed by the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal application.

The Tribunal held that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions, including purchase and sale through registered brokers via banking channels. The AO failed to bring any specific material on record to controvert this evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Annual Lettable Value (ALV) of unsold flats held as stock-in-trade by a builder/developer cannot be assessed under the head 'Income from house property'. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was vacated.