ITAT Rajkot Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's finding of no inquiry by the AO was not supported by facts. The AO had conducted due inquiry, and the assessee's voluntary surrender of professional receipts was a plausible view, making the PCIT's order unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, agreeing that the assessee had surrendered ownership of the common land and internal roads as per development permission conditions and had not sold them.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 7.5% on the sale of imlo, finding the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving a lower profit. For the car purchase, the Tribunal allowed an adjustment for earlier taxed income, reducing the unexplained addition.

The Tribunal held that the usual tax liability includes surcharge and education cess. Excluding these components from the carry-forward MAT credit for set-off against normal tax liability was not justifiable. Therefore, the rectification order was not upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 7.5% on the sale of imlo, finding the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving a lower profit. For the car purchase, the Tribunal allowed an adjustment for earlier taxed income, reducing the unexplained addition.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 7.5% on the sale of imlo, finding the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving a lower profit. For the car purchase, the Tribunal allowed an adjustment for earlier taxed income, reducing the unexplained addition.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 7.5% on the sale of imlo, finding the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving a lower profit. For the car purchase, the Tribunal allowed an adjustment for earlier taxed income, reducing the unexplained addition.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and the absence of objection from the revenue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to a genuine reason and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merit after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share capital and unsecured loan providers, as well as trade creditors. The amended provisions of Section 68 of the Act require the source of funds in the hands of investors to be explained, which the AO did not adequately verify.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the reassessment order did not result in any adverse findings. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the bank statement clearly showed a nexus between the borrowed funds and the loan advanced, establishing that the interest expense was incurred for earning interest income. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the deduction.

The tribunal noted that the section 263 proceedings were quashed by a co-ordinate bench. Consequently, the assessment order had no basis, and the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that since the husband admitted to carrying out the transactions and the same was added to his income by the Revenue, making the addition in the assessee's hands on a protective basis was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's order under section 263 was passed in violation of natural justice principles as the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no error in the AO's order on merits, as the Pr.CIT failed to demonstrate any inadequacy in the inquiry conducted by the AO.

The Tribunal held that suspicion cannot replace evidence and that the Assessing Officer failed to provide conclusive proof of the assessees making the alleged 'on-money' payments. The addition was deleted as it was based on conjectures and surmises without sufficient supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that suspicion cannot replace evidence and that the Assessing Officer failed to provide conclusive proof of the assessees making the alleged 'on-money' payments. The addition was deleted as it was based on conjectures and surmises without sufficient supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that suspicion cannot replace evidence and that the Assessing Officer failed to provide conclusive proof of the assessees making the alleged 'on-money' payments. The addition was deleted as it was based on conjectures and surmises without sufficient supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that suspicion cannot replace evidence and that the Assessing Officer failed to provide conclusive proof of the assessees making the alleged 'on-money' payments. The addition was deleted as it was based on conjectures and surmises without sufficient supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that suspicion cannot replace evidence and that the Assessing Officer failed to provide conclusive proof of the assessees making the alleged 'on-money' payments. The addition was deleted as it was based on conjectures and surmises without sufficient supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that suspicion cannot replace evidence and that the Assessing Officer failed to provide conclusive proof of the assessees making the alleged 'on-money' payments. The addition was deleted as it was based on conjectures and surmises without sufficient supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that suspicion cannot replace evidence and that the Assessing Officer failed to provide conclusive proof of the assessees making the alleged 'on-money' payments. The addition was deleted as it was based on conjectures and surmises without sufficient supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that suspicion cannot replace evidence and that the Assessing Officer failed to provide conclusive proof of the assessees making the alleged 'on-money' payments. The addition was deleted as it was based on conjectures and surmises without sufficient supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that suspicion cannot replace evidence and that the Assessing Officer failed to provide conclusive proof of the assessees making the alleged 'on-money' payments. The addition was deleted as it was based on conjectures and surmises without sufficient supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that suspicion cannot replace evidence and that the Assessing Officer failed to provide conclusive proof of the assessees making the alleged 'on-money' payments. The addition was deleted as it was based on conjectures and surmises without sufficient supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that suspicion cannot replace evidence and that the Assessing Officer failed to provide conclusive proof of the assessees making the alleged 'on-money' payments. The addition was deleted as it was based on conjectures and surmises without sufficient supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including confirmations, land records, and bank passbooks, to discharge its onus under Section 68. The revenue failed to bring contrary material to doubt the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that suspicion cannot replace evidence and that the Assessing Officer failed to provide conclusive proof of the assessees making the alleged 'on-money' payments. The addition was deleted as it was based on conjectures and surmises without sufficient supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that suspicion cannot replace evidence and that the Assessing Officer failed to provide conclusive proof of the assessees making the alleged 'on-money' payments. The addition was deleted as it was based on conjectures and surmises without sufficient supporting evidence.

The assessee's counsel filed a letter seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the AO had adequately examined the issue and taken a legally plausible view by applying the GP rate to the unaccounted cash sales. The PCIT's view that the entire amount should be taxed was not accepted.

The ITAT held that since the assessee's appeal on the same issue for the same assessment year was decided by confirming the CIT(A)'s action, the Revenue's appeal on this ground should also be decided in line with that decision.

The Tribunal held that Section 45(1A) of the Income Tax Act is applicable to the year in which the insurance claim was initially rejected, treating the receipt as zero. Therefore, the capital loss is to be computed and allowed in that year.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee has interest-free funds exceeding their investments made for earning exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted. Following Gujarat High Court precedents, the Tribunal found no disallowance was called for.

The Tribunal held that the purchase of packing materials was a sale and not a works contract, thus Section 194C was not applicable. It also held that the discounts were not in the nature of commission, making Section 194H inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable due to defects in the assessment proceedings, specifically concerning the satisfaction required for invoking Section 153C. The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating the penalty on merits.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable due to defects in the assessment proceedings, specifically concerning the satisfaction required for invoking Section 153C. The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating the penalty on merits.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed against a low tax effect, which was below the prescribed limit for departmental appeals. The appeal did not fall within the exceptions provided in the relevant CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable due to defects in the assessment proceedings, specifically concerning the satisfaction required for invoking Section 153C. The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating the penalty on merits.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable due to defects in the assessment proceedings, specifically concerning the satisfaction required for invoking Section 153C. The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating the penalty on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was valid as the AO had failed to conduct proper inquiry and verification regarding the deductions claimed by the assessee. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that once the foundation (the Section 263 revision order) for the additions made by the AO was quashed, no further additions could be sustained. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that once the foundation (the Section 263 revision order) for the additions made by the AO was quashed, no further additions could be sustained. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that since the deferred tax liability was shown in the profit and loss appropriation account and not debited to the profit and loss account, any adjustment to book profit would lead to double addition. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the adjustment was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable due to defects in the assessment proceedings, specifically concerning the satisfaction required for invoking Section 153C. The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating the penalty on merits.

The Tribunal held that once income is estimated based on a gross profit ratio after rejecting books of accounts, no further disallowance can be made under Section 40(a)(ia) for expenses that formed part of the GP estimation. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient reasoning for sustaining the disallowance on certain expenses.

The Tribunal held that once income is estimated based on a gross profit ratio after rejecting books of accounts, no further disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) can be made for expenses that formed part of the GP estimation. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Department's appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases could be added to the assessee's income, not the entire purchase amount. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's income was determined at a lower figure than returned, and the assessee failed to appear or provide evidence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.