ITAT Ranchi Judgments — September 2022

The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to ESI and PF are paid before the due date of filing the income tax return, no disallowance is warranted. The revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal decided the appeal on merits after hearing the Ld. DR, noting the assessee's non-cooperation and untraceability. The Tribunal upheld the order of the AO.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment was not obtained from the prescribed authority (PCIT instead of JCIT) beyond four years, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment was not obtained from the prescribed authority (PCIT instead of JCIT) beyond four years, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to EPF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return, the deduction is allowable. For one appeal, a ground regarding service tax payment was admitted and remitted for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition for undisclosed turnover as it was based on arithmetical mistakes by the AO. Similarly, the addition under Section 41(1) for increase in capital was deleted as the CIT(A) correctly held that the provisions were erroneously invoked. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions under Section 68, finding that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to EPF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return, the deduction is allowable. For one appeal, a ground regarding service tax payment was admitted and remitted for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not pressed before the CIT(A) but was raised before the Tribunal. Given the settlement under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme for the related TDS demand, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to grant consequential relief.

The Tribunal held that the disclosure of the cash amount as additional income by a director proved the transaction was not genuine. It also upheld that share application money falls under the purview of Section 269SS, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Since the dispute was no longer alive due to the subsequent order, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that investment in an under-construction house within three years from the sale of the original property is admissible for deduction under Section 54F. The provision is beneficial and should be liberally construed.