ITAT Rajkot Judgments — October 2018

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 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 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.