ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s 5.50% NPR was not justified as it ignored the prior year's lower NPR and the increase in turnover. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply an average NPR of 4.4% based on the assessee's declared NPRs for the preceding two assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 was invalid as it did not specify whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following precedent, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the grounds challenging the reopening under Section 148 were not adjudicated by the CIT(A). Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of these legal grounds.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, indicating a non-application of mind by the AO.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- for land purchase, finding sufficient cash balance in the assessee's cash book. The estimated business income was reduced to Rs. 1,20,000/- due to lack of basis for the original estimation.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 did not specify the exact charge against the assessee (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Following precedent, the Tribunal found this to be a non-application of mind by the AO, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to levy late fees under Section 234E via intimation under Section 200A for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A was prospective. The late fees levied before this date were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as it did not meet the enhanced monetary threshold.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee received valid declarations under Section 206C(1A), they were not legally obliged to collect TCS, and thus could not be treated as an assessee in default for not collecting it. Procedural lapses in the declaration forms did not negate this.

The tribunal considered the written request for withdrawal from the assessee and the lack of objection from the revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. Furthermore, the CIT(A) was correct in holding that the issue was debatable and beyond the scope of Section 154, as the mistake was not apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not justified. Fees under Section 234E can only be levied for the period starting from June 1, 2015, to the date of actual filing of the TDS return.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not justified. Fees under Section 234E can only be levied for the period starting from June 1, 2015, to the date of actual filing of the TDS return.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not justified. Fees under Section 234E can only be levied for the period starting from June 1, 2015, to the date of actual filing of the TDS return.