ITAT Raipur Judgments — April 2023

The CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had correctly accounted for the rice, which was advanced to DMO and did not belong to the assessee. The ITAT upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order.

The Tribunal held that since the sale deed clearly stated the seller was responsible for stamp duty and registration charges, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee. The addition made by the AO was vacated.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO, directing him to restrict the addition on bogus purchases to the same Gross Profit (GP) rate as that of genuine purchases. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds regarding hamali and milling charges, upholding the CIT(Appeals) deletion.

The Tribunal held that the rate at which CSPDCL purchases power from captive power plants cannot be considered a comparable uncontrolled transaction. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition, as the transactions were not comparable due to factors like monopoly and dictated rates.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had multiple other prescribed modes of repayment available under Section 269T, such as demand drafts or electronic transfers, even if cheques were not accepted. The claim of ignorance of law was also rejected as the assessee was assisted by a Chartered Accountant.

The Tribunal held that while the receipts might not be unexplained cash credits under Section 68, the AO's summary acceptance without verification rendered his order erroneous. Therefore, the PCIT's action under Section 263 was upheld for limited verification of the nature and source of these receipts.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation to be substantiated, noting that the equal discrepancy in sales and purchases figures supported the claim. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was vacated.

The Tribunal held that employee's share of contributions towards ESI & EPF deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare acts would constitute income of the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was upheld.

The Tribunal held that employee's share of contributions towards ESI & EPF deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare acts would constitute income of the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was upheld.

The Tribunal held that employee's share of contributions towards ESI & EPF deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare acts would constitute income of the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was upheld.

The Tribunal held that employee's share of contributions towards ESI & EPF deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare acts would constitute income of the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the partnership deed permitted overdrawing capital with a rider for interest, making the AO's view plausible. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that penalties under Sections 271D and 271E are to be imposed by the Joint Commissioner, not the AO, and a mere omission by the AO does not make the assessment order erroneous.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the reopening was invalid due to a change of opinion without fresh material. The Tribunal also concurred that the advances were made in the normal course of business and thus, the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity. It also noted the assessee's contention that the delay was due to the late appointment of the statutory auditor, suggesting a reasonable cause for the delay.

The Tribunal held that despite the financial hardships and death of a director, there was no reasonable cause for the significant delay in completing the tax audit, especially since the statutory audit was completed much earlier by the same auditor.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making the transfer pricing adjustment, as the assessee had not claimed any deduction under Section 80-IA and the provisions of specified domestic transfer pricing did not apply. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case regarding the method for valuing the transfer of captive power.

The Tribunal found that the AO made mistakes in recasting the accounts and that the assessee was persistent non-compliant. It directed the AO to recalculate the taxable income by applying 3.25% GP on recharge voucher sales and 2% GP on mobile phone sales.

The tribunal restored the matter concerning the disallowance of Rs. 2,47,85,290/- back to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, emphasizing the matching concept in accounting. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted, holding it uncalled for as the assessee had already made a suo motu disallowance and the AO failed to provide specific reasons for dissatisfaction.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. The subsequent assessment order rendered the appeal infructuous as it accepted the assessee's original income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. It also noted the assessee's contention that the delay was due to the late appointment of the statutory auditor, suggesting a reasonable cause.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to re-quantify the addition by restricting it to the profit element of the bogus purchases, calculated at the same Gross Profit (GP) rate as genuine purchases. Fresh evidence submitted by the assessee was directed to be considered by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits should be treated as unaccounted turnover, following a consistent approach adopted by the AO in the succeeding assessment year. The addition was restricted to the profit element.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the onus to prove that the amount received was part sale consideration, and the purchasers had accepted this in their statements. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 20,10,000/- was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not considered the amended provisions of Section 12A(2) which could be applicable retrospectively. The matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication after examining the applicability of the amendment and the outcome of a writ petition regarding a prior rejection.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not considered the amended provisions of Section 12A(2) which could be applicable retrospectively. The matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication after examining the applicability of the amendment and the outcome of a writ petition regarding a prior rejection.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not considered the amended provisions of Section 12A(2) which could be applicable retrospectively. The matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication after examining the applicability of the amendment and the outcome of a writ petition regarding a prior rejection.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not considered the amended provisions of Section 12A(2) which could be applicable retrospectively. The matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication after examining the applicability of the amendment and the outcome of a writ petition regarding a prior rejection.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal, and the Departmental Representative did not object. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not offer any explanation for the significant delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was considered not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to provide any explanation for the significant delay in filing the appeal, the appeal could not be entertained.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to re-quantify the addition by restricting it to the profit element of the bogus purchases, calculated at the same Gross Profit (GP) rate as genuine purchases. Fresh evidence submitted by the assessee was directed to be considered by the AO.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the original controversy no longer survived due to the concessions made by the Assessing Officer in subsequent proceedings.

The Tribunal held that Clause 21(c) of the Tax Audit Report pertains to inadmissible expenses and not admissible remuneration. Therefore, the non-mention of admissible remuneration did not warrant disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the rectification application was indeed filed beyond the stipulated time period as provided in Section 154(7) of the Act. Therefore, the dismissal of the application by the lower authorities was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the addition for bogus purchases should be restricted to the extent of profit the assessee would have made by procuring goods at a discounted rate from the open market, aligning the GP rate of bogus purchases with genuine purchases. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh quantification.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal filed by the assessee. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the subsequent acceptance of the assessee's claim by the AO.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO, holding that the transaction was indeed a slump sale and Section 50B was applicable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the sale of an undertaking as a whole for a lump sum consideration constitutes a slump sale.

The Tribunal held that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and were allowable as a deduction under Section 37. It further concurred with the CIT(A) that Section 43CA was not applicable as the sales were at market value and within the 10% tolerance limit.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.