The ITAT Raipur held that the assessee had already disclosed the sale of the old car in the return of income and paid tax on the profit from the transaction. Since the sale consideration and profit were recorded and taxed, the Tribunal noted that there was no loss to the Revenue.
ITAT Raipur held that the appellate authority must pass a reasoned order on merits under Section 250(6) and cannot dismiss an income tax appeal solely for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal upheld revision under Section 263 after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct enquiry into excess diesel shortage claimed by the assessee. It held that incomplete enquiry makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The tribunal held that exemption for a statutory housing authority depends on whether housing units were sold above cost. The case was remanded to examine if charges exceeded cost plus nominal mark-up.
The ITAT relied on orders under section 148A(d) for subsequent years where reopening was dropped, holding the assessee to be a local authority. The earlier additions for unexplained investment and interest income were set aside.
The ITAT Raipur held that prior to 1 June 2015, there was no enabling provision under Section 200A to levy late filing fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns. The Tribunal ruled the demand for A.Y. 2013-14 unsustainable and deleted the levy.
ITAT Raipur held that Section 249(4)(b) applies only where advance tax was legally payable. In absence of taxable income and advance tax liability, dismissal of appeal was set aside and matter restored for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained when the bank account is recorded in audited books and disclosed in the ITR. In absence of contrary evidence, the addition under Section 69A was deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that admission of fresh evidence without AOs examination violated procedural rules. The deletion of ₹2 crore disallowance under Section 40A(3) was set aside for reconsideration.
The Tribunal found non-compliance with statutory duties under Sections 250(4) and 250(6). The dismissal on delay alone was held improper, and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.
