ITAT Raipur Judgments — February 2023

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the department were not maintainable as the approval from the Committee of Disputes (CoD) was neither obtained nor applied for. Consequently, the grounds raised by the revenue were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the department were not maintainable as the approval from the Committee of Disputes (CoD) was neither obtained nor applied for. Consequently, the grounds raised by the revenue were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the department were not maintainable as the approval from the Committee of Disputes (CoD) was neither obtained nor applied for. Consequently, the grounds raised by the revenue were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the department were not maintainable as the approval from the Committee of Disputes (CoD) was neither obtained nor applied for. Consequently, the grounds raised by the revenue were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the department were not maintainable as the approval from the Committee of Disputes (CoD) was neither obtained nor applied for. Consequently, the grounds raised by the revenue were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the department were not maintainable as the approval from the Committee of Disputes (CoD) was neither obtained nor applied for. Consequently, the grounds raised by the revenue were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the department were not maintainable as the approval from the Committee of Disputes (CoD) was neither obtained nor applied for. Consequently, the grounds raised by the revenue were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the department were not maintainable as the approval from the Committee of Disputes (CoD) was neither obtained nor applied for. Consequently, the grounds raised by the revenue were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the department were not maintainable as the approval from the Committee of Disputes (CoD) was neither obtained nor applied for. Consequently, the grounds raised by the revenue were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the department were not maintainable as the approval from the Committee of Disputes (CoD) was neither obtained nor applied for. Consequently, the grounds raised by the revenue were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the designated authority had issued Form 5. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee firm should be assessed in the status of a partnership firm, not an AOP. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Dulichand Laxminarayan, the Tribunal clarified that while a firm itself cannot be a partner in another firm, an individual can represent their firm as a partner. The Tribunal found no justification for recharacterizing the assessee firm as an AOP, as the partners were individuals acting in a representative capacity. Therefore, Ground of Appeal No. 1 was allowed. Regarding the disallowance of Rs. 28,600/- for donation, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had failed to adjudicate this issue. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Ground of Appeal No. 3 was allowed for statistical purposes. The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt of the judgment, but the overall result indicates it was not fully allowed or dismissed. Ground of appeal No. 4 was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employee's contribution to ESI and PF is not allowable as a deduction, following the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. The disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The tribunal held that due to the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the IBC, the appeal could not be continued. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee was relevant and required verification. Therefore, the issue was restored back to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation of retaining cash for two years was impractical, the AO was also not entirely correct in disallowing the entire amount. A part of the cash withdrawal was considered available for deposit.

The Tribunal found that the basis for the addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- was not discernible from the orders of the lower authorities. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's cash deposits could be explained by business receipts and opening cash in hand, and therefore, vacated the addition.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available, it could be presumed that the interest-free loan was given from these funds. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(Appeals) lacked a proper basis for their disallowance calculations. It directed the AO to restrict the addition to the profit element by bringing the GP rate of bogus purchases to the same level as genuine purchases.

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(Appeals) lacked a proper basis for their disallowance calculations. It directed the AO to restrict the addition to the profit element by bringing the GP rate of bogus purchases to the same level as genuine purchases.