ITAT Rajkot Judgments — August 2023

The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO to consider the revised audit report and any other evidence filed by the assessee. The AO is to pass an order afresh in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal noted that the Department itself submitted that the appeal was wrongly filed and therefore sought to withdraw it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the NFAC and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The NFAC is directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to independently decide on the condonation of delay.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the NFAC and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The NFAC is directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to independently decide on the condonation of delay.

The tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 14A, relying on a Special Bench decision, and also upheld the addition for deemed rental income based on the AO's valuation and allowance of standard deduction.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), finding it to be reasoned. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide any assistance and therefore found no reason to interfere with the partial relief granted.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke revisionary powers under Section 263 for issues that were beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny assessment. Therefore, the revisionary order was not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order was passed ex parte without considering the assessee's written submissions. Therefore, the order was set aside for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that cash withdrawals by partners from a firm are not considered loans or deposits and are not subject to Section 40A(3). Since the AO had already verified these transactions during the original assessment, the PCIT's revisionary order was found unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry into the deduction claim and that the view taken was legally plausible, supported by various judicial precedents. Therefore, the PCIT's order setting aside the assessment was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's business activities, which involved providing vehicles for transportation to third parties, entitled them to the higher rate of depreciation. The Tribunal followed its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which mandates dismissal of pending appeals by the Revenue where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the deposit as being from withdrawals made from retirement benefits received shortly before demonetization. Therefore, the PCIT erred in revising the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) on an ad-hoc basis was unsustainable in law, as the assessee's agricultural income and land holdings were not disputed, and no specific basis was provided for the addition. The Tribunal relied on the principle that additions cannot be made on an estimated basis without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to verify if the recipients had offered the interest income in their returns and paid due taxes. If so, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) would be warranted.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to provide details substantiating the inclusion of most of the Form 26AS receipts in the books of accounts. The remaining difference of Rs. 3,75,044 was to be added to the income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to deduct TDS as per Section 194-IA made it liable for penalty under Section 271C, as no reasonable cause was established. The fact that sellers paid tax and assessee paid interest did not absolve the assessee from the penalty.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be imposed solely because the assessee's view was not accepted by the revenue, especially when the assessee took a legally plausible view based on available information and certificates. The penalty was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While acknowledging that the Assessing Officer had examined the corpus donation issue, the Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(E) and restored the matter for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, accepting the assessee's contention regarding the CBDT circular's monetary limits. The Revenue can seek restoration if they can show the circular is inapplicable.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration, acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance but emphasizing the large addition and the interest of justice. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the penalty appeal hastily as the appeal against the quantum addition was still pending. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not getting its accounts audited, considering it was the first year of managing the business and the first year the turnover exceeded the limit. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not well-versed with the provisions and had no mala fide intention.

The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation of Rs. 495 per sq. meter was not justified as comparable instances showed values within the acceptable range of the assessee's purchase price. The addition made to the income was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had properly examined the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and that judicial precedents supported the assessee's claim. However, the Tribunal found that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue regarding the late deposit of PF and the non-enquiry into interest on tax refunds.

The tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as it was filed with a delay of 976 days, which was not supported by an affidavit and lacked justifiable reasons. The assessee also failed to appear before the Tribunal despite several opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance of bank guarantee commission needed reconsideration by the Assessing Officer (AO) after considering the assessee's arguments. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance of bank guarantee commission needed reconsideration by the Assessing Officer (AO) after considering the assessee's arguments. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that a liberal view should be taken if scrap was sold to a manufacturing concern that would use it for manufacturing purposes, provided the buyer furnished the requisite Form 27C. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of these forms.

The Tribunal held that a liberal view should be taken if scrap was sold to a manufacturing concern that would use it for manufacturing purposes, provided the buyer furnished the requisite Form 27C. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of these forms.

The Tribunal held that a liberal view should be taken if scrap was sold to a manufacturing concern that would use it for manufacturing purposes, provided the buyer furnished the requisite Form 27C. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of these forms.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance of bank guarantee commission needed reconsideration by the Assessing Officer (AO) after considering the assessee's arguments. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the source of the deposits from agricultural income. The documentary evidence supporting agricultural income was not disputed by the Department.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot initiate revision proceedings under Section 263 solely for further verification without pointing out any specific infirmity in the AO's order. Since the PCIT also observed that the assessee's case appeared to be in order prima facie, the revisionary order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) made substantial enhancements without giving the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) made substantial enhancements without giving the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that a liberal view should be taken if scrap was sold to a manufacturing concern that would use it for manufacturing purposes, provided the buyer furnished the requisite Form 27C. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of these forms.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary power could be exercised even if an appeal was pending before the CIT(A). It confirmed the PCIT's view regarding the unexplained sundry creditors, finding the AO's failure to apply Section 115BBE an error prejudicial to revenue. However, it disagreed with the PCIT regarding bogus expenses, stating they should be disallowed under Section 37(1) and not Section 69C, thus not attracting Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the AO's view of treating the excess stock as business income was a plausible view. The Pr.CIT's exercise of revisionary powers was not in accordance with law as there was no error in the AO's order, and therefore, the Pr.CIT's order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the voyage was part of an international journey and that the assessee had paid taxes in Singapore. Therefore, the benefits of the India-Singapore DTAA were applicable, and the income was taxable only in Singapore.

The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be made solely based on a third-party affidavit without corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination. The AO had rejected the assessee's affidavit without proper justification.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as the Assessing Officer had accepted the returned income. The Tribunal denied the Revenue's request for adjournment and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.