ITAT Raipur held that penalty under Section 271D could not survive where the assessment order contained no satisfaction for initiating such proceedings. The penalty was quashed for lack of valid jurisdiction.
The ITAT Raipur held that an application for final approval under Section 80G cannot be rejected solely because it was filed belatedly. It remanded the matter after directing the CIT(Exemption) to examine the trust’s genuineness and statutory conditions on merits.
The ITAT Raipur upheld the disallowance of 12.5% of disputed purchases after finding that the assessee failed to establish the actual physical movement and consumption of the goods. The Tribunal held that invoices, banking records and GST documents alone were insufficient in the absence of supporting transport and production evidence.
The ITAT held that the assessment was invalid because it was completed by an Income Tax Officer who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The assessment was quashed without examining the additions on merits.
The ITAT Raipur held that estimated gross profit addition on unrecorded sales cannot be sustained when the Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account under Section 145(3). The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding the assessment contrary to settled legal principles.
The Tribunal held that a university is substantially financed by the Government only when Government grants exceed 50% of total receipts during the relevant previous year. Since the prescribed threshold was not met, the exemption was denied.
The Tribunal upheld the addition after finding that excess stock discovered during survey was physically verified and admitted by the assessee. The later retraction was rejected as unsupported and delayed.
The Tribunal found no distinguishing factors between the assessee and another liquor trader whose GP rate of 3.13% had been accepted by the Department. In the absence of justification for a higher rate, the GP estimation was reduced from 4% to 3.13%.
ITAT Raipur held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where documents and information forming the basis of reopening under Section 148 were withheld from the assessee.
The Tribunal quashed the assessment after finding that crucial JSK Server data, screenshots, and investigation records were never provided to the assessee. The ruling reiterates that additions based on undisclosed evidence violate principles of natural justice.
