ITAT Agra Judgments — August 2019

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as withdrawn, as they fell within the revised monetary limit of Rs 50,00,000 or less for tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek recall of dismissal for cases inadvertently included or with a higher tax effect.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, partly allowed the assessee's appeal by reducing the GP rate estimation, and dismissed the assessee's ground regarding interest paid to relatives. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue's appeal was below the enhanced monetary limit for appeals.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had relied on non-binding decisions and failed to consider relevant Supreme Court judgments and provisions of the Benami Transactions Act. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge his onus in ensuring the presence of creditors and bringing contradictory evidence on record. The CIT(A)'s deletion of certain disallowances was upheld. However, the assessee's cross-objection regarding Manish Enterprises was dismissed due to failure to establish identity.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It noted that the nature of the business necessitates cash purchases from small vendors, and the AO's disallowance was based on assumption and guesswork. The acceptance of similar purchases in subsequent years by the AO further strengthened the assessee's case.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss all appeals where the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 50,00,000, as per the CBDT circular dated August 8, 2019. The revenue was granted liberty to seek recall of dismissal for cases inadvertently included or where the tax effect exceeded the limit.

The Tribunal upheld the ad-hoc disallowance, finding specific discrepancies in the claimed expenses such as self-made vouchers without signatures and unverified electricity and shop expenses. The CIT(A) had already reduced the disallowance from 30% to 10%.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had relied on non-binding decisions and failed to consider relevant Supreme Court judgments and provisions of the Benami Transactions Act. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had relied on non-binding decisions and failed to consider relevant Supreme Court judgments and provisions of the Benami Transactions Act. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had relied on non-binding decisions and failed to consider relevant Supreme Court judgments and provisions of the Benami Transactions Act. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, partly allowed the assessee's appeal by reducing the GP rate estimation, and dismissed the assessee's ground regarding interest paid to relatives. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue's appeal was below the enhanced monetary limit for appeals.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had relied on non-binding decisions and failed to consider relevant Supreme Court judgments and provisions of the Benami Transactions Act. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 is binding on departmental officers as per Section 268A(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that the AO's calculation of peak cash credit was factually incorrect and that the CIT(A) had mechanically confirmed the AO's finding without appreciating the facts. The Tribunal held that the addition made on a peak balance could not be justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the appeal ex-parte. The delay was condoned, and the CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits.