ITAT Agra Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish that the payments made to Dr. Ravi Shankar Dalmia were unreasonable. The comparable instances cited by the AO were not appropriate, and the revenue generated by Dr. Dalmia's services supported the remuneration paid. Consistency with previous assessment years was also noted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the CBDT circular which restricts appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/-. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if the tax effect was miscalculated or other exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was invalid as it was granted without application of mind and without reviewing the relevant records. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid approval was declared void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was invalid as it was granted without application of mind and without reviewing the relevant records. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid approval was declared void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the additional grounds challenging the reassessment proceedings were not substantiated with evidence and were therefore dismissed. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that while the circle rate for commercial property was applicable, some discount was warranted due to tenants' possession. The matter was remanded for fresh valuation.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision for processing TDS statements and making adjustments. Even for belated filings before June 1, 2015, the AO was competent to levy fee under Section 234E, especially since the amendment to Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, specifically provided for computing such fees.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was invalid as it was granted without application of mind and without reviewing the relevant records. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid approval was declared void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was invalid as it was granted without application of mind and without reviewing the relevant records. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid approval was declared void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was invalid as it was granted without application of mind and without reviewing the relevant records. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid approval was declared void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was invalid as it was granted without application of mind and without reviewing the relevant records. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid approval was declared void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in referring the matter to the Valuation Officer under Section 142A as the assessee did not maintain books of account and had admitted to unaccounted investment. The CIT(A)'s confirmation of an addition of Rs. 28,36,777/- was found to be reasonable and logistic.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 92,00,000/- as unexplained capital under Section 68. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was also upheld due to the failure to prove the creditworthiness of the cash deposits.

The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, as the tax effect was within the prescribed monetary limit. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek recall if any appeal was inadvertently included.

The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, as the tax effect was within the prescribed monetary limit. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek recall if any appeal was inadvertently included.

The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, as the tax effect was within the prescribed monetary limit. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek recall if any appeal was inadvertently included.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal restored the matter of penalty to the CIT(A) to be adjudicated along with the quantum appeal. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's delay and latches but, considering the object of tax collection, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A). This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the AO had already considered the same material regarding cash payments and self-made vouchers during the original assessment. Therefore, reopening the assessment under Section 147 based on the same facts constituted a change of opinion and was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT circular, the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to the Revenue to seek recall if the tax effect was wrongly computed or if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's delay and latches but, considering the object of tax collection, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A). This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000.

The Tribunal held that removing moisture from skimmed milk and guthale from ghee does not constitute manufacturing. Therefore, profits from the sale of such goods are not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the partners and the source of the capital introduction. The explanations provided were inconsistent and lacked documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee explained the cash deposits based on the cash book, which was not disputed by the AO. Regarding the disallowance of interest on a loan to a charitable trust, the Tribunal did not decide on merits due to a circular regarding tax effect. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground concerning TDS on interest paid to a bank, following High Court precedent.

The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of 12% NP was arbitrary. Considering comparable cases and the increase in turnover, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a 6% NP rate on gross receipts. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as academic and below the monetary limit.

The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of 12% NP was arbitrary. Considering comparable cases and the increase in turnover, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a 6% NP rate on gross receipts. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as academic and below the monetary limit.

The Tribunal decided to dispose of all appeals and cross-objections based on a CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for filing appeals. Appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 50,00,000 or less were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid, as the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, and this was not a mere change of opinion. It also held that the interest income from FDRs was correctly treated as 'other income' and not part of business income, thus upholding the addition.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, following the CBDT circular which mandates not to press appeals where the tax effect is Rs 50,00,000 or less. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if the tax effect was wrongly computed or if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, following the CBDT circular which stipulated that appeals with a tax effect of Rs 50,00,000 or less would not be pressed or filed. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if the appeal was inadvertently included.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was due to the ex-parte nature of the previous order, the assessee's inability to present evidence due to being a non-resident, and the admission of additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner was correct in invoking Section 263 as the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The assessee failed to demonstrate that its case fell under any exceptions to Rule 37BA.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in disallowing deferred revenue expenses, upholding the assessee's claim based on the principle of consistency. However, other grounds were not found to warrant interference with the lower authorities' orders.