Loading ITAT cases…
140 tribunal orders from the Rajkot bench in 2018.
Showing 40 of 140 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E could not be effected in the course of processing an intimation under Section 200A of the Act, as it was beyond the permissible adjustments at that time. Therefore, the impugned levy was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E could not be effected in the course of processing an intimation under Section 200A of the Act, as it existed prior to the amendment in 2015. Therefore, the impugned levy was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments under Section 200A of the Act, as it stood prior to the amendment in 2015. Therefore, the penalty was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E could not be effected in the course of processing an intimation under Section 200A of the Act, as it existed prior to the amendment in 2015. Therefore, the impugned levy was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E could not be effected in the course of processing an intimation under Section 200A of the Act, as it was beyond the permissible scope of adjustments prior to the amendment in 2015. Therefore, the impugned levy was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E could not be effected in the course of processing an intimation under Section 200A of the Act, as it was beyond the permissible adjustments at that time. Therefore, the impugned levy of fees was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E could not be effected in the course of processing an intimation under Section 200A of the Act, as it existed prior to the amendment in 2015. Therefore, the impugned levy was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable because the assessee had furnished explanations and all relevant facts, even if not accepted by the AO. The Tribunal also noted the lack of a specific penalty notice and the differing grounds for penalty by the AO and CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E could not be effected in the course of processing an intimation under Section 200A, as it was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments at that time. Therefore, the penalty was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E could not be effected in the course of processing an intimation under Section 200A of the Act, as it was beyond the permissible adjustments at that time. Therefore, the impugned levy of fees was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, stating that Section 40(a)(ia) applies to non-deduction, not short-deduction, and that TDS deposited by the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) is permissible.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E could not be effected in the course of processing an intimation under Section 200A of the Act, as it existed prior to the amendment in 2015. Therefore, the impugned levy was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E could not be effected in the course of processing an intimation under Section 200A of the Act, as it was beyond the permissible adjustments at that time. Therefore, the impugned levy was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal at Rs. 20 lakhs. The present case did not fall under any of the exceptions provided in the circular.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 11,77,200/- related to cash withdrawals from GMCB, considering them as genuine withdrawals. It also deleted the addition of Rs. 3,25,295/- relating to opening debtors, as it was part of the gross sales. However, it directed the AO to calculate 5% profit on the unconsidered balance of gross sales.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 20 Lakhs. The case did not fall within any of the exceptions provided in the circular.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in adopting the average purchase price for closing stock valuation when the assessee consistently used the LIFO method. The disallowance of salary to the assessee's sons was upheld due to lack of justification and timely payment.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to discharge the onus regarding the deposits, the entire cash deposits cannot be treated as income, considering withdrawals from the same account. The peak credit of the account should be considered as taxable income.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to Rs. 20 Lakhs. The present case did not fall under any of the exceptions provided in the circular.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the cash deposits of Rs. 3,25,000/- for the car purchase on behalf of his brother and Rs. 4,25,000/- for the property purchase on behalf of his sister. These amounts were directed to be allowed out of the peak amount.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 Lakhs are not maintainable, unless they fall under specific exceptions. The cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the income was disclosed only after the survey and detection by the department, not voluntarily. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was correctly levied.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 68 was not sustainable as the CIT(A) had correctly observed that the source and identity of the creditor were established, and the transaction was through banking channels. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding other disallowances, finding them to be based on surmises and conjectures.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on deposits made for essential business connections is business income and eligible for deduction under Section 10B. It also ruled that deductions for interest on capital and remuneration to partners should not be reduced from eligible profits for Section 10B calculation.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on deposits made for essential business connections is business income and eligible for deduction under Section 10B. It also ruled that deductions for interest on capital and remuneration to partners should not be reduced from eligible profits for Section 10B calculation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the assessee's appeals because the CIT, under Section 263, had directly enhanced the income rather than remitting the issue to the AO. The assessee's remedy was to challenge the CIT's Section 263 order directly, not to raise arguments before the CIT(A) regarding the original assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the assessee's appeals because the CIT, under Section 263, had directly enhanced the income rather than remitting the issue to the AO. The assessee's remedy was to challenge the CIT's Section 263 order directly, not to raise arguments before the CIT(A) regarding the original assessment.
The Tribunal held that the manual jottings and the agreement to sell, found during the survey, corroborated the cash transactions. The director's retraction was deemed unreliable, and the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the non-existence of these transactions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT failed to point out specific defects in the AO's order and that Explanation 2 to Section 263, relied upon by the CIT, was not applicable to the assessment year in question. The Tribunal quashed the CIT's order.
The Tribunal held that the commission expenses were incurred exclusively for business purposes and were eligible for deduction. Regarding the loans, the Tribunal noted that some were accepted as genuine by the AO, and recovery petitions filed in the High Court indicated the genuineness of others.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and directed the AO to reassess the case after considering these documents. The CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to appreciate the nature of agricultural activities and the variability of expenses. The addition was not sustainable as the AO did not demonstrate any other source of income for the farmer.