ITAT Rajkot Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 which mandates dismissal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lacs.

The Tribunal held that the AO's method of calculating the deduction was incorrect. The CIT(A) had correctly allowed the claim as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(viii)(a) and Rule 6ABA, which allows for calculation based on entire outstanding advances, not just fresh advances made in a month.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding it not maintainable due to the low tax effect, which was below the prescribed limit in the CBDT circular. The case did not fall under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, and the case did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in the CBDT Circular and did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable because the tax effect was below the threshold prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, which was below the threshold prescribed by the CBDT circular. The case did not fall under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a CBDT circular restricting appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. The circular was made applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The ITAT quashed the reassessment orders, following a High Court judgment that held that show-cause notices from the Excise Department, without final adjudication, do not constitute sufficient material for the AO to make additions. The tribunal found no independent material gathered by the AO.

The Tribunal held that while orders under section 172(4) are assessment orders and generally fall under section 144C, there was ambiguity in the law regarding its application to section 172(4). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure under section 144C.

The Tribunal held that an order under section 172(4) is an assessment order and thus the provisions of section 144C, requiring a draft order, should have been followed. However, due to a bona fide dispute regarding the applicability of section 144C, the matter was remitted.

The Tribunal held that an order under section 172(4) is an assessment order and thus the provisions of section 144C, requiring a draft order, should have been followed. However, due to a bona fide dispute regarding the applicability of section 144C, the matter was remitted.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 33,000/- on account of low household withdrawals was made on surmise and conjecture without supporting evidence and thus deleted it. The Tribunal also held that the speculation loss could not be set off against income under Section 69A.