ITAT Raipur Judgments — May 2023

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is statutorily obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) failed to apply his mind to the issues raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. The CIT(A) is statutorily obligated to apply his mind to all issues arising from the impugned order.

The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee's share of contributions towards EPF and ESI is liable to be disallowed as per Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that, following the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT, delayed deposit of employee's share of contributions towards EPF and ESI is liable to be disallowed as per Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee's share of contributions towards EPF and ESI is liable to be disallowed as per Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT.

The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee's share of contributions towards EPF and ESI is liable to be disallowed as per Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee's share of contributions towards EPF and ESI is liable to be disallowed as per Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee's share of contributions towards EPF and ESI is liable to be disallowed as per Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act. This decision followed the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making an addition without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts and without properly considering the explanation provided by the assessee for the decline in profits. The CIT(Appeals) also erred in arbitrarily sustaining a part of the addition.

The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals) is statutorily obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for delayed deposit of employee's contributions was debatable, especially prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. Therefore, it could not be rectified under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution was debatable, especially prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Therefore, it could not be rectified under Section 154. The appeals were dismissed as the rectification application was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO had duly examined the issue of Section 14A disallowance and made a conscious decision not to disallow any expenses as the assessee had not earned any exempt income. This view was supported by judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to disallow the delayed Provident Fund contributions, despite his own clear view on the matter for ESI contributions, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order setting aside the assessment was upheld.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It vacated the addition of Rs. 4,82,840/- related to a payment to Ms. Anita Gajwani, finding it to be a repayment of a prior loan and interest. However, it sustained the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Ms. Manila Giri and Rs. 1,60,000/- for unexplained expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was invalid because the initial notice under section 143(2) was issued by an officer without the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, the subsequent assessment framed by the ACIT, Circle-4(1), Raipur, was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the CPC failed to consider the assessee's response, which indicated the payments were made in cash to a government entity as per Rule 6DD(b). This rendered the adjustment under Section 143(1) invalid.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be contradictory and noted that the AO's rectification order vacating the entire disallowance was not placed before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO had already examined the issue of Section 14A disallowance and accepted the assessee's claim that no exempt income was earned. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO had indeed examined the issue of Section 14A disallowance and, based on the assessee's submission of no exempt income earned, had consciously decided not to make any disallowance. This conscious view of the AO, supported by judicial precedents, could not be disturbed by the PCIT under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for delayed deposit of employee's contributions was debatable, especially prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. Therefore, it could not be rectified under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and was statutorily obligated to decide the appeal on merits. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution was debatable, especially prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Therefore, it could not be rectified under Section 154. The appeals were dismissed as the rectification application was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for making a protective assessment. The initiation of reassessment requires a bonafide belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, which is not met by a hypothetical or contingent future possibility.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as the approval under Section 151 was obtained before the notice under Section 148 was issued. However, the matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals), finding no infirmity in the view that the assessee's claim of agriculture income was devoid of merit due to lack of substantiation.

The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's claim that the cash deposits were business receipts. However, due to the lack of proper substantiation before the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's claim that the cash deposits were business receipts. However, due to the lack of proper substantiation before the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition in respect of bogus purchases should be restricted to the extent of bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate of such purchases to the same level as that of genuine purchases. The matter was restored to the AO for recalculation, considering the declaration made under IDS, 2016.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, confirming the addition of Rs. 3,84,000 as unexplained investment under Section 69. The tribunal found no infirmity in the AO's decision, as the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of the cash deposits.

The Tribunal allowed deduction for interest income from banking business based on a prior ruling. It restored the paddy procurement business profit issue to the AO for re-adjudication due to lack of substantiating documents. Other income claims were upheld as disallowed.

The Tribunal allowed deduction for interest income from banking business based on a prior ruling. It restored the paddy procurement business profit issue to the AO for re-adjudication due to lack of substantiating documents. Other income claims were upheld as disallowed.

The Tribunal allowed deduction for interest income from banking business based on a prior ruling. It restored the paddy procurement business profit issue to the AO for re-adjudication due to lack of substantiating documents. Other income claims were upheld as disallowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B as per the relevant CBDT circulars. However, the matter was restored to the AO to consider the assessee's claim for deduction of expenses.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B as per the relevant CBDT circulars. However, the matter was restored to the AO to consider the assessee's claim for deduction of expenses.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of the sale proceeds as undisclosed income, finding the share transaction to be ingenuine. It also confirmed the applicability of Section 115BBE for taxing this amount as unexplained money.

The ITAT allowed the claim for depreciation based on Explanation 5 to Section 32(1) of the Act. The Tribunal also set aside the disallowance of salary expenses, finding it to be arbitrary and lacking material support from the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of the sale proceeds as undisclosed income, finding the share transaction to be ingenuine. It also confirmed the applicability of Section 115BBE for taxing this amount as unexplained money.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of the sale proceeds as undisclosed income, finding the share transaction to be ingenuine. It also confirmed the applicability of Section 115BBE for taxing this amount as unexplained money.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of the sale proceeds as undisclosed income, finding the share transaction to be ingenuine. It also confirmed the applicability of Section 115BBE for taxing this amount as unexplained money.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 26,72,250/- as unexplained cash credits. The assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness of lenders, and genuineness of the loan transactions.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to EPF/ESI was not permissible. The reporting of delayed deposits in the audit report did not automatically constitute a disallowance that could be adjusted under Section 143(1)(a)(iv).

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.