ITAT Raipur Judgments — July 2023

The Tribunal restored the issues of unsecured loans, share application money, and sundry creditors to the AO for re-examination in light of amendments to Section 68. For Section 14A, the issue was also restored to the AO to verify actual investment and exempt income, with a clarification that no disallowance would be made if no exempt income was earned.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not confronting the alleged mistakes in the AO's working with the AO and by not calling for a remand report, thus violating principles of natural justice. However, acknowledging potential errors in the AO's calculation, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued before the mandatory approval from the Principal CIT under Section 151. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid notice was also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the AO should verify whether the assessee received contributions towards NMET from leaseholders or if leaseholders paid directly. If payments were made directly to NMET, the assessee would not be obligated to collect tax at source. The matter was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee (DMO) was not obligated to collect tax at source on contributions towards NMET if the leaseholders paid directly to NMET. However, the accounts prima facie indicated receipt of such contributions, necessitating further verification by the AO.

The assessee, through their Authorized Representative, sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to this request.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee to submit necessary details. This was done in the interest of natural justice as the issue was not decided on merits by the lower appellate authority.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee to submit necessary details. This was done in the interest of natural justice as the issue was not decided on merits by the lower appellate authority.

The tribunal corrected the Cross Objection number in the cause title from 'C.O. No. 08/RPR/2018' to 'C.O. No. 4/RPR/2022'. This correction is to be read along with the original order.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee to submit necessary details. This was done in the interest of natural justice as the issue was not decided on merits by the lower appellate authority.

The Tribunal heard both parties and perused the withdrawal application. In view of the assessee's request, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that impairment loss on fixed assets is not allowable under Section 41(2) if the assessee continues to hold the assets. The CIT(A)'s finding that the entire block of assets was exhausted was found to be factually incorrect.

The Tribunal held that if the original assessment order is invalid or non-est in the eyes of law, the Pr. CIT cannot revise it under Section 263. Therefore, the revision order was quashed.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as sought. The Departmental Representative did not raise any objection to the withdrawal application.