ITAT Rajkot Judgments — November 2018

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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.