ITAT Raipur Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) based on various Supreme Court decisions. Regarding EPF contributions, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if payments were made within the grace period, and if so, to vacate the disallowance.

The tribunal held that an order imposing penalty under Section 270A is appealable before the CIT(A) under Section 246A. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal without adjudication was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) based on various Supreme Court decisions. Regarding EPF contributions, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if payments were made within the grace period, and if so, to vacate the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the AO's rejection of the books of accounts was unsustainable as it was based on vague and generalized observations without pointing out any specific defects. Insignificant mistakes in accounts do not warrant rejection under Section 145(3).

The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of opening cash balance was not fully substantiated, but also that the entire addition was not justified. The addition was scaled down to Rs. 10,91,000/-.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not adequately substantiated the genuineness of the cash receipts with corroborative evidence before the lower authorities. However, considering the additional evidence submitted, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the facts regarding the inclusion of profit on sale of fixed assets in the business income. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) based on various Supreme Court decisions. Regarding EPF contributions, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if payments were made within the grace period, and if so, to vacate the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) based on various Supreme Court decisions. Regarding EPF contributions, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if payments were made within the grace period, and if so, to vacate the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the irrecoverable advance, though not a bad debt as it was not offered as income earlier, was a business loss incidental to the carrying on of business and thus allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's adverse inferences regarding unsecured loans were based on misconceived facts. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to support the loan transactions, and the Pr. CIT had not dislodged this evidence.

The Tribunal held that the electricity charges paid to Chhattisgarh Electric Power Distribution Company Limited, a state government undertaking, were covered by the exception in Rule 6DD(b) and thus not disallowable under Section 40A(3). However, the disallowance for godown rent was sustained due to lack of evidence that payments were below Rs. 10,000 each.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction as required by Section 68 of the Act. The claim of the assessee acting as a facilitator was also rejected.

The Tribunal held that the share capital received from one company (M/s Third Eye Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.) was explained as it was tax-paid funds under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However, the share capital from the second company (M/s Moon Shine Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.) was not satisfactorily explained, and the addition was confirmed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not created any provision for construction expenses in the relevant year and that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly directed the deletion of the addition. The judgment also discusses accounting standards for construction contracts and revenue recognition, implying that the AO's disallowance of speculative loss might be reconsidered based on these principles.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not created any provision for construction expenses in the relevant year and that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly directed the deletion of the addition. The judgment also discusses accounting standards for construction contracts and revenue recognition, implying that the AO's disallowance of speculative loss might be reconsidered based on these principles.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for the mismatch in receipts and restored the issue to the AO for verification. For the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO with liberty to the assessee to furnish a certificate in the prescribed form.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made under section 143(1) was beyond its purview, especially when the deposit was made before the due date for filing the return of income. The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench's decision in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the reason provided for the delay was not a sufficient cause, especially in the current digital era where assessees are expected to monitor their registered email IDs. The Tribunal noted the delay was inordinate and showed an apathetic approach.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of low net profit was not justified as the AO did not reject the books of accounts. The Tribunal also found that the unsecured loan from the mother was genuine based on documentary evidence, despite her statement not being perfectly recalled. However, the issue of excess cash and stock was not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was not justifiable and demonstrated carelessness. Consequently, the delay was not condoned.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was not justifiable and demonstrated carelessness. Consequently, the delay was not condoned.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the assessee's request for adjournment and disposing of the appeal without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of delayed deposit of employee's share of EPF contributions, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. The appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of delayed deposit of employee's share of EPF contributions, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. The appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot summarily dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obligated to decide on merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT held that the assessment order passed by the AO was invalid because it was framed without issuing a valid notice under Section 143(2) by the jurisdictional AO. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the investment in mutual funds was indeed sourced from the assessee's bank account, which included opening balance and maturity proceeds of FDRs. However, these bank statements were produced for the first time before the Tribunal. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication after considering the additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of service tax payable was not justified as it was not charged to the profit and loss account, following a jurisdictional High Court ruling. However, the judgment does not explicitly detail the decision on EPF and ESIC contributions.

The ITAT held that the assessment order passed by the AO was invalid because it was framed without issuing a valid notice under Section 143(2) by the jurisdictional AO. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals was not justified as it was due to the assessee's callous and lackadaisical conduct in delaying the deposit of appeal fees without any bonafide reason.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) was invalid due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2). Consequently, the revisionary proceedings initiated by the PCIT under Section 263 were without valid jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals was not justified as it was due to the assessee's callous and lackadaisical conduct in delaying the deposit of appeal fees without any bonafide reason.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not claimed the interest on delayed TDS as a deduction in its profit and loss account. Instead, it was debited to a sub-contractor's account and subsequently reimbursed. Therefore, the disallowance by the AO was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that Section 164 of the Act is triggered only when beneficiaries' shares are unknown or indeterminable. In this case, as the trust deed provided for specific beneficiaries, the levy of tax at MMR under Section 164 was incorrect. Furthermore, the adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) was not appropriate for such a disallowance.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. The Revenue did not raise any objection to the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. Since the revenue representative did not object, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on account of undervaluation of stock, finding the AO's estimation to be without basis. The tribunal also found merit in the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to non-deduction of TDS on bill discounting charges, considering them as part of purchase cost.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, noting the assessee had sufficient own funds and no exempt income was earned. For Section 40A(3), the Tribunal found that the expenditure was not debited to the P&L account and was paid as an advance, thus not attracting disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bona fide reason for inadvertently failing to file an adjournment for one appeal, believing both appeals had merged. Therefore, the matter was set aside to allow the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee contributions was vitiated in law. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions and similar rulings from other benches.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the nature and source of the credits. The denial of transactions by the creditors and the lack of satisfactory explanation from the assessee justified the addition.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee contributions was vitiated in law. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions and similar rulings from other benches.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. The assessee failed to provide a satisfactory reason for the significant delay, rendering the appeal not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactory and demonstrated a callous and lackadaisical approach. The Tribunal declined to condone the inordinate delay of 137 days.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was justified due to the AO's failure to conduct necessary inquiries. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, with the assessee given an opportunity to present all explanations.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's application for condonation of delay, finding the reasons provided unsubstantiated by documentary evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was justified due to the AO's failure to conduct necessary inquiries. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, with the assessee given an opportunity to present all explanations.

The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the specific grounds raised by the assessee regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was justified due to the AO's failure to conduct necessary inquiries. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, with the assessee given an opportunity to present all explanations.