ITAT Rajkot Judgments — June 2019

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that TDS was not deductible, supported by consistent past assessments where no disallowance was made. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of middlemen involvement or contradict the royalty payment claims.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that TDS was not deductible, supported by consistent past assessments where no disallowance was made. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of middlemen involvement or contradict the royalty payment claims.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of diesel expenses, finding that the AO failed to appreciate the change in business pattern and the nature of expenses. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance as no exempt income was claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of diesel expenses, finding that the AO failed to appreciate the change in business pattern and the nature of expenses. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance as no exempt income was claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenses was not justified as the funds were advanced for business expediency and the borrowed funds had merged with own funds. Regarding on-money receipts, the Tribunal directed that income should be estimated at 20% of gross receipts, considering the rejection of books of accounts and group settlement commission's findings.

The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 147 was not sustainable as the mere fact of cash deposits in a bank account does not, per se, indicate that income has escaped assessment. The AO did not have tangible material to form a belief of escapement of income.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of rent expenses as the assessee failed to provide evidence and had agreed to the disallowance before the AO. The Tribunal also upheld the denial of TDS credit due to the lack of substantiating documentary evidence from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the sale of agricultural land was not an adventure in the nature of trade and the gain was not taxable as business income. Following a previous identical decision, the Tribunal reversed the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 201(1) allows a payer to not be treated as an assessee in default if the recipient has included the sum in their income, paid tax thereon, and furnished a certificate. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the fee leviable under Section 234E cannot exceed the amount of TCS payable. Since the demand for TCS was deleted by the CIT(A) and not appealed by the Revenue, the fee under Section 234E also had to be Nil.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, restricting the disallowance of expenses with defective vouchers to approximately 10% of the disallowed amount, considering the business turnover and prior year allowances.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not justified as the AO formed his belief based on verification of existing case records, not on any new or tangible material from an external source. The Tribunal relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision in Deloitte Haskins & Sells.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenses was not justified as the funds were advanced for business expediency and the borrowed funds had merged with own funds. Regarding on-money receipts, the Tribunal directed that income should be estimated at 20% of gross receipts, considering the rejection of books of accounts and group settlement commission's findings.

The Tribunal held that the fee leviable under Section 234E cannot exceed the amount of TCS payable. Since the demand for TCS was deleted by the CIT(A) and not appealed by the Revenue, the fee under Section 234E also had to be Nil.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim, though higher than what the AO allowed, was bonafide and debatable. Therefore, it did not constitute concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.