ITAT Agra Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance for the first ground (Rs. 3,13,078) due to incomplete payee addresses and the inability to verify the genuineness of the transactions despite vouchers. However, for the second ground (Rs. 8,52,002), the Tribunal allowed the deduction, finding that the transactions were genuine and there was business expediency for cash payments, even though they didn't strictly fall under Rule 6DD(k).

The Tribunal found that the net profit rates applied by both the AO and CIT(A) were on the higher side. It directed that interest income, assessed separately, should be excluded when calculating the net profit rate for contract receipts.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are not sustainable if they are not based on incriminating material found during the search. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, the Tribunal deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were legally invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to properly dispose of the assessee's objections and serve the order before completing the assessment. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue's appeal was dismissed based on a CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had applied the cost of acquisition from the assessee's brother's case without confronting the assessee, thus depriving them of an opportunity to rebut. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lacs should not be filed or pressed. The circular is binding on departmental officers.

The Tribunal held that an appeal filed against a deceased person is a nullity and therefore incompetent. Consequently, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued was not in conformity with the law and was void ab initio. Therefore, all proceedings based on such notice were quashed.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the bank had a bonafide belief that TDS was not required due to the Agra Development Authority's registration certificate and its nature as a state government-run body. This belief constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the bank had a bonafide belief based on the Agra Development Authority's registration certificate and its nature as a state government-run entity, constituting a reasonable cause under Section 273B.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue in limine. This was based on a CBDT Circular directing that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lacs should not be filed or pressed.