ITAT Rajkot Judgments — August 2022

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for AY 2010-11 due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. For AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, the appeals were dismissed as the issue was covered by a previous ITAT decision in favour of the assessee. The assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as the main ground was decided in their favour.

The Tribunal noted that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) considered the Form 26A certificates and ledger details submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification of interest expenses and to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted a thorough inquiry into the applicability of Section 14A and the assessee had provided satisfactory replies with supporting documents. Therefore, the revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified as the order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted a thorough inquiry into the applicability of Section 14A, and the assessee had provided satisfactory replies and documents. Therefore, the revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified as there was no error prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for AY 2010-11 due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. For AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, the appeals were dismissed as the issue was covered by a previous ITAT decision in favour of the assessee. The assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as the main ground was decided in their favour.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for AY 2010-11 due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. For AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, the appeals were dismissed as the issue was covered by a previous ITAT decision in favour of the assessee. The assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as the main ground was decided in their favour.

The Tribunal found that the actual liability was Rs. 8,97,893/-, and a portion of this was subsequently paid or written off and offered to income. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. However, it found that the assessee was likely a salaried employee and the business transactions were conducted by another individual. Therefore, the estimation of gross profit was not plausible and any addition should be made in the hands of the actual business operator.

The Tribunal found that certain details were not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification of documents and repayment of loans.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider Section 44AD and the assessee's submissions regarding gross receipts. The addition was deemed incorrect as the bank transactions were related to the disclosed turnover.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not admitting additional evidence filed by the assessee and not providing a proper opportunity of hearing. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 40% was exorbitant and without basis, especially considering the assessee had provided purchase bills and reconciliation. The Tribunal held that the gross profit should have been taken at 8%, reflecting the assessee's actual profit.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 because the AO had already examined the very issue raised by the PCIT during the assessment proceedings. The AO's actions were not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the reopening proceedings were bad in law as they were based on a change of opinion on an issue already decided in the original assessment. The Tribunal also noted that excise duty refund claimed by the assessee was not an incentive but a refund as per duty drawback norms.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reopening proceedings were bad in law as they were based on a change of opinion on an issue already decided in the original assessment. The Tribunal also noted that excise duty refund claimed by the assessee was not an incentive but a refund as per duty drawback norms.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the Assessing Officer could not interfere with the completed assessment and disallow the deduction under Section 80IA(4). Therefore, the additions made were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the Assessing Officer could not interfere with the completed assessment and disallow the deduction under Section 80IA(4). Therefore, the additions made were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the Assessing Officer could not interfere with the completed assessment and disallow the deduction under Section 80IA(4). Therefore, the additions made were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the Assessing Officer could not interfere with the completed assessment and disallow the deduction under Section 80IA(4). Therefore, the additions made were not sustainable.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding profit estimation, noting the assessee had already declared income higher than the presumptive rate and the authorities lacked a basis for their estimation. For cash deposits, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to provide peak credit working.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that changing the assessee's status from trust to AOP/BOI without verification or intimation is not permissible under Section 143(1). The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the trust's status.

The Tribunal held that a completed assessment can only be reopened under Section 153A if incriminating material is found during a search. Since no such material was found in this case, the disallowance of the Section 80IA(4) deduction was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that as per Section 80A(5), a claim for deduction under Chapter VI must be made in the original return of income. Since the assessee failed to do so and also filed the audit report belatedly, the claim was not admissible.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made inquiries regarding Section 14A disallowances and considered the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal distinguished between a lack of inquiry and an inadequate inquiry, stating that the PCIT cannot substitute their own view for the AO's plausible view if inquiries were made.

The Tribunal held that a completed assessment can only be reopened under Section 153A if incriminating material is found during a search. Since no such material was found in this case, the disallowance of the Section 80IA(4) deduction was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made inquiries and considered the assessee's submissions regarding the cash deposits. The Tribunal distinguished between a lack of inquiry and an inadequate inquiry, stating that the PCIT cannot impose their own view on the extent of inquiry. Therefore, the revisional order passed by the PCIT was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that a completed assessment can only be reopened under Section 153A if incriminating material is found during a search. Since no such material was found in this case, the disallowance of the Section 80IA(4) deduction was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that a completed assessment can only be reopened under Section 153A if incriminating material is found during a search. Since no such material was found in this case, the disallowance of the Section 80IA(4) deduction was unjustified.