ITAT Raipur Judgments — January 2023

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground concerning the validity of the assessment. It found that the notice under Section 143(2) was not issued by the jurisdictional AO, rendering the assessment order liable to be vacated. However, due to fresh evidence requiring verification, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred for due diligence, even for an abandoned project, are allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1) if they were incurred to safeguard business interests and did not result in any enduring benefit. The Tribunal relied on various High Court judgments supporting this view.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and that appeals must be disposed of on merits. The matter was set aside to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits, including the issue of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revision order was based on incorrect facts, as the assessee had not claimed exemption for capital gains, nor had the AO allowed any such exemption. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's premise for revision was flawed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's EPF contribution was to be upheld following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The issue of turnover difference was remanded to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication after confronting the AO with additional evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order to the extent that the assessment order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue concerning the loan transaction of Rs. 20 lac received from M/s. Alipore Vinimay Private Limited. The Tribunal reasoned that while the AO might have examined the transaction, the fact that the lender was identified as a shell company by ITD/SEBI warranted further scrutiny. The Pr. CIT's observation that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries was deemed valid. Consequently, the Pr. CIT was justified in setting aside the assessment order for re-adjudication of this issue after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal did not make any specific finding on the issue of loan repayments under Section 69C, as the judgment excerpt appears to be incomplete regarding this aspect. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 7 lac made by the CIT(Appeals). It found that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the cash deposits, justifying the invocation of Section 69A. The claim that the AO wrongly applied Section 69A was rejected.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the captioned appeals as no objection was raised by the Revenue. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the captioned appeals as no objection was raised by the Revenue. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued within the stipulated time period. It further held that the assessee failed to provide irrefutable documentary evidence to prove that the cash withdrawals from his bank account were utilized for the investment, thus upholding the addition.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the captioned appeals as no objection was raised by the Revenue. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was not justified in initiating revision proceedings under Section 263 after the assessee had opted for and been issued a certificate under the DTVSV Act. The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the Pr. CIT.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) has no power to condone the delay in filing the application. However, considering the delay in disposal of the application by the CIT, the matter was remanded to consider the application as filed for the subsequent assessment year.

The Tribunal held that ad-hoc disallowances of expenses cannot be made on a general or arbitrary basis without supporting material. The AO's disallowances lacked specific infirmities and were not backed by adequate evidence.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 1563 days was inordinate and not supported by any genuine or justifiable reason. The assessee's conduct was found to be habitually lackadaisical and negligent.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 1563 days was inordinate and not supported by any genuine or justifiable reason. The assessee's conduct was found to be habitually lackadaisical and negligent.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 1563 days was inordinate and not supported by any genuine or justifiable reason. The assessee's conduct was found to be habitually lackadaisical and negligent.

The Tribunal found the CIT(Appeals) had summarily accepted unsubstantiated claims without proper verification or confronting the AO. The matter of diesel expenses for hired vehicles was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances were made on an ad-hoc basis without considering the fair market value or legitimate business needs. Therefore, the disallowances made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(Appeals) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO's comparison of interest paid on unsecured loans from relatives with interest on a personal loan from a bank was infeasible. The disallowance was based on an incorrect comparison and was therefore vacated.

The Tribunal held that the AO had exceeded his jurisdiction by reopening the concluded assessment based on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the AO was not justified in invoking Section 41(1) as the conditions for remission or cessation of a trading liability were not met, and no benefit was obtained by the assessee.

The tribunal held that the corrigendum application was not maintainable as it was not filed by the assessee appellant as required by the Income Tax Rules and the Income-tax Act. The assessee was given liberty to file it as per the prescribed procedure.

The Tribunal held that the corrigendum application was not maintainable as it was filed by the counsel and not the assessee. The assessee was given liberty to file it again as per the prescribed procedure.

The tribunal held that the corrigendum application was not maintainable as it was not filed by the assessee appellant as required by the Income Tax Rules and the Income-tax Act. The assessee was given liberty to file it again as per the prescribed procedure.

The Tribunal held that the corrigendum application was not maintainable as it was not filed by the assessee appellant as required by the Income Tax Rules and the Act. The assessee was given liberty to file it as per the prescribed procedure.

The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. The Tribunal relied on a previous order of the Tribunal in a similar case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) was not justified in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AA. The CIT also erred in refusing registration without giving a proper opportunity for compliance.