ITAT Raipur Judgments — March 2023

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(viib) was not sustainable as the fair market value of the shares was determined by the assessee as per the prescribed method, exceeding the issue price. The grounds related to share application money and suppression of production were also decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to share application money and expenses. The Tribunal found that the additions were made on an ad-hoc basis without specific material evidence and that the CIT(A)'s findings were based on established legal precedents.

The Tribunal held that the method of calculating closing stock by applying an arbitrary GP rate was incorrect. It directed the AO to re-calculate the stock valuation using the correct GP rate. However, the addition for excess cash was upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide a plausible explanation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged its onus by providing requisite information about the investor, who had already disclosed and paid taxes on the funds. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 could not be sustained.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to share application money and expenses. The Tribunal found that the additions were made on an ad-hoc basis without specific material evidence and that the CIT(A)'s findings were based on established legal precedents.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(viib) was not sustainable as the fair market value of the shares was determined by the assessee as per the prescribed method, exceeding the issue price. The grounds related to share application money and suppression of production were also decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(viib) was not sustainable as the fair market value of the shares was determined by the assessee as per the prescribed method, exceeding the issue price. The grounds related to share application money and suppression of production were also decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged its onus by providing requisite information about the investor, who had already disclosed and paid taxes on the funds. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the method of calculating closing stock by applying an arbitrary GP rate was incorrect. It directed the AO to re-calculate the stock valuation using the correct GP rate. However, the addition for excess cash was upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide a plausible explanation.

The Tribunal held that additions for bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element by bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate of such purchases to the same level as genuine purchases. The matter was restored to the AO for re-quantification.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) failed to adjudicate the additional ground of appeal concerning the charging of interest under Section 234C. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication of this specific ground.

The Tribunal held that additions for bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element by bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate of such purchases to the same level as genuine purchases. The matter was restored to the AO for re-quantification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to follow the procedure under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, by not confronting the additional evidence submitted by the assessee to the AO. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the revision order under Section 263, which formed the basis for the AO's action, had been vacated by a prior ITAT order. Consequently, the AO's order giving effect to the revision was rendered invalid.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions based on the DVO report was justified due to discrepancies in rates and methodology. The assessee's appeals were also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under section 153D was mechanical, based on presumptions, and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the assessments based on such invalid approval were void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the additions made on account of unpaid VAT, Entry Tax, and Service Tax were not justified, especially when the assessee had not claimed these as deductions and followed an 'exclusive method' of accounting.

The Tribunal held that the action taken by the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) under Section 263 without confronting the assessee with the queries and without giving an opportunity of being heard is illegal and in contravention of natural justice. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions based on the DVO report was justified due to discrepancies in rates and methodology. The assessee's appeals were also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions based on the DVO report was justified due to discrepancies in rates and methodology. The assessee's appeals were also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions based on the DVO report was justified due to discrepancies in rates and methodology. The assessee's appeals were also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions based on the DVO report was justified due to discrepancies in rates and methodology. The assessee's appeals were also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. It vacated the disallowance of interest on loans from two companies, restored the issue of interest on loans from three individuals to the AO for re-adjudication, and vacated the disallowance of interest on interest-free loans given by the assessee. Additions related to notional rental income and Section 14A were also restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the advance received by the assessee, following the project completion method of accounting, was not to be considered as turnover for the purpose of Section 44AB. Even if it were considered turnover, the penalty should not be levied as the assessee acted under a bona fide belief and there was no conscious disregard of legal obligations.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions based on the DVO report was justified due to discrepancies in rates and methodology. The assessee's appeals were also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were initiated by an officer who lacked jurisdiction. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed as it was made without valid assumption of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the action taken by the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) under Section 263 without confronting the assessee with the queries and without giving an opportunity of being heard is illegal and in contravention of natural justice. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. It vacated the disallowance of interest on loans from two companies, restored the issue of interest on loans from three individuals to the AO for re-adjudication, and vacated the disallowance of interest on interest-free loans given by the assessee. Additions related to notional rental income and Section 14A were also restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under section 153D was mechanical, based on presumptions, and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the assessments based on such invalid approval were void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law as it was based on a notice issued by an officer who lacked jurisdiction. A notice issued without valid assumption of jurisdiction is considered non-est and cannot be validated by subsequent transfer of the case.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses was not foolproof. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the facts and evidence.

The Tribunal held that while the failure of the AO to provide complete copies of statements of Shri Narendra Jain and Shri Champak Mandal, and to facilitate their cross-examination, constituted a serious flaw and a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, it would not, on its own, render the assessment a nullity. The Tribunal acknowledged that this failure made it impractical for the assessee to defend its case and rebut adverse inferences. Therefore, in the interest of fairness and by adopting a balanced approach, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. The AO is directed to provide complete copies of the statements of Shri Narendra Jain and Shri Champak Mandal and facilitate their cross-examination to the assessee. The Tribunal refrained from dealing with other contentions regarding the validity of jurisdiction under Section 147 and the merits of the case, allowing the assessee to raise them before the AO during the de-novo proceedings. The AO is to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the additions made under Section 43B for unpaid VAT, Entry Tax, and Service Tax were not justified when the assessee had not claimed these as deductions in the P&L account and followed an 'exclusive method' of accounting.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the additions made on account of unpaid VAT, Entry Tax, and Service Tax were not justified, especially when the assessee had not claimed these as deductions and followed an 'exclusive method' of accounting.

The Tribunal found that while the AO failed to conclusively prove the assessee was not engaged in business, the assessee also failed to provide sufficient evidence for the cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying the source of the deposits with supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 43B was not warranted as the assessee had indeed paid the GST before the due date for filing the return. The revised audit report and supporting evidence were admitted to establish this fact.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that mere delayed payment to creditors does not automatically render purchases as bogus. In the absence of any other material to establish the purchases as non-genuine, the disallowance was unwarranted.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee during the year, no disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is warranted. This view is supported by Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's participation in assessment proceedings validated the notice under Section 148, rejecting the claim of non-service. However, it found substance in the assessee's explanation that cash deposits were from business sales and past savings, requiring verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that based on CBDT Circular No. 01/2015, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 11/12 for the assessment year under consideration as the assessment proceedings were pending when the registration was granted. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that based on CBDT Circular No. 01/2015, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 11/12 for the assessment year under consideration as the assessment proceedings were pending when the registration was granted. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not conducted necessary verifications, such as issuing a notice to the correct email ID of the investor company or conducting a proper spot inquiry about its address. The CIT(Appeals) had merely endorsed the AO's view without independent verification.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment was vitiated due to the non-service of a valid notice under Section 143(2) within the prescribed time. Therefore, the assessment order was liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the ill-health of the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without a speaking order and that the matter requires fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that an addition for unpaid VAT liability cannot be made under Section 43B if the VAT was not debited to the profit and loss account. Relying on a jurisdictional High Court judgment, the addition was vacated.

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 68 and Section 56(2)(viib) were unsustainable and vacated them. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was also vacated as its basis was removed.

The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals) cannot summarily dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obligated to decide the appeal on its merits. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that employee contributions to provident fund and ESI, if deposited after the due date, constitute income of the assessee and are not eligible for deduction. The disallowance made by the AO was sustained.