ITAT Rajkot Judgments — November 2019

The tribunal, citing various High Court and ITAT decisions, held that an appeal must be effectively pursued. Since the assessee failed to appear or prosecute the appeal, it was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on capital gains, finding that Section 45(3) was applicable and the firm recorded no capital gain. Regarding remuneration and interest, the Tribunal agreed that these were not mandatory payments as per the partnership deed and were not received by the assessee, thus not taxable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted sufficient inquiry into the genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for thorough investigation.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted sufficient inquiry into the genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for thorough investigation.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted sufficient inquiry into the genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for thorough investigation.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted sufficient inquiry into the genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for thorough investigation.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted sufficient inquiry into the genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for thorough investigation.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals related to penalty and interest as premature or consequential. For the quantum additions, the Tribunal partly allowed some appeals, dismissed one, and allowed others for statistical purposes, indicating a mixed outcome for the various assessment years and assessees.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals related to penalty and interest as premature or consequential. For the quantum additions, the Tribunal partly allowed some appeals, dismissed one, and allowed others for statistical purposes, indicating a mixed outcome for the various assessment years and assessees.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals related to penalty and interest as premature or consequential. For the quantum additions, the Tribunal partly allowed some appeals, dismissed one, and allowed others for statistical purposes, indicating a mixed outcome for the various assessment years and assessees.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of a definite finding renders the penalty unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that an order under Section 172(4) is covered by the scheme of Section 144C of the Act, meaning a draft assessment order should have been provided. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that an order under Section 172(4) is covered by the scheme of Section 144C of the Act, meaning a draft assessment order should have been provided. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was levied on both counts, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was levied on both counts, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was levied on both counts, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted in the related quantum appeal. Therefore, the penalty order was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was levied on both counts, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act applies irrespective of whether shares are held as stock-in-trade or as capital assets. Therefore, the assessee's plea was found to have no merit.