ITAT Patna Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking and reasoned order after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a sufficient opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The enhanced monetary limits introduced by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 are applicable to pending appeals as well.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking and reasoned order after providing the assessee with a sufficient opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal followed the CBDT circular which stated that appeals with a tax effect below the specified limit should not be filed or should be withdrawn.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking and reasoned order after providing the assessee with a sufficient opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to cooperate for early disposal.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to pass a reasoned order after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. This was done in the interest of justice and fair-play.

The Tribunal held that depreciation allowance must be separately worked out and deducted even when net profit is estimated on a best judgment assessment basis. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute total income applying the 6% net profit rate and allow depreciation accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 are applicable to pending appeals as well. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The circular enhancing monetary limits was applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the payments were made on holidays when banks were closed, and the goods were received from truck drivers who acted as agents. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted as the transactions were covered under Rule 6DD(j) and (k).

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's estimation of gross profit at 31.71% was excessive, and directed a recalculation at 10%. Regarding the cessation of liability, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly considered the assessee's submissions regarding advance payments, reducing the addition.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to allow a 20% rebate on the stock valuation, considering factors like MRP, old stock, and damages. The addition based on third-party statement was upheld, but the interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D was directed to be recomputed based on the returned income, following a High Court decision.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate net profit at 6% of total contract receipts and income from machinery rent at 15% of gross receipt. Interest under Section 234B was to be recomputed on the returned income.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing a hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to pass a reasoned order after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed passed an ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal reduced the estimated net profit rate from 8% to 6% of the total gross contract receipts, following the Patna High Court's decision. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation separately from the estimated net profit.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, are applicable to pending appeals as well. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The circular enhancing the monetary limit was applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision and dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 are applicable to pending appeals as well. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The circular's relaxation in monetary limits was applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The amended CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits is applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was served beyond the prescribed limitation period. Therefore, the scrutiny assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was bad in law and deserved to be annulled.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The circular's enhanced monetary limits were applicable to pending appeals.