ITAT Rajkot Judgments — February 2023

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the cash transactions, and the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the cash transactions, and the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the cash transactions, and the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the cash transactions, and the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the purchases were not in the nature of job work but rather a contract for sale. Since the assessee did not supply any material to the suppliers and the suppliers manufactured the products themselves, Section 194C was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that denying the deduction under Section 80P solely on the ground of belated filing of the return (under Section 139(4) instead of 139(1)) is not justifiable. The claim for deduction should be considered if the return is filed within the permissible time limits and further proceedings are pending.

The tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was set aside by the ITAT for fresh adjudication, the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that delayed payments of both employer's and employee's contributions to PF/ESIC are disallowable. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to interest on the refund until the date of actual receipt, citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT was correct in finding the assessment order erroneous regarding the notional foreign exchange loss, as it was not properly examined and appeared to be an unallowable notional loss. However, for the import purchase discrepancy, the assessee provided a satisfactory reconciliation, and the Pr.CIT's order was set aside on this point.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not properly verified the genuineness of gifts and claims, and the DCIT's finding under Section 263 indicated that the assessee had provided all relevant material. Therefore, the cause for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) did not arise.

The Tribunal held that interest under Sections 234A and 234B is compensatory in nature and should only be levied up to the date of payment of self-assessment tax. Charging interest beyond the date of tax payment, when no revenue loss is incurred, is not justified.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme for the appeal in question. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A and that the Assessing Officer did not provide adverse findings on the evidence submitted. Therefore, the additions deleted by the CIT(A) were upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence due to genuine reasons for the assessee's non-participation. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had reasonably verified bank transactions and directed a 5% net profit on contract receipts, and also found the plot purchase to be explained.

The assessee later filed a fresh application for registration and was granted it. Therefore, the assessee sought to withdraw the current appeal as it had become infructuous. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.