ITAT Ranchi Judgments — February 2019

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition on interest on current account deposits, finding the CIT(A)'s reasoning to be justified. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the stock difference addition, noting that the AO's calculation lacked supporting evidence and the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including a stock register.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to land and building fund, citing that possession was taken and construction commenced. For the undisclosed bank account, the tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting a portion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that for three assessees, where payments were made via cheque on or before the agreement date, the additions under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) were to be deleted. For the remaining two assessees, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, including a mandatory reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2).

The Tribunal held that the assessee had made substantial compliance with the notices. The penalty should not have been levied. The Tribunal noted that the notice dated 07/12/2017, for which compliance was due on 15/12/2017, was dispatched on 27/12/2017 and delivered on 29/12/2017, along with the penalty order. This clearly indicated that compliance on 15/12/2017 was not possible. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the penalty. The ratio decidendi is that a penalty for non-compliance cannot be sustained if the notice itself was served after the compliance date and along with the penalty order, rendering compliance impossible.

The Tribunal, considering previous ITAT rulings on similar issues, restricted the disallowance on 'site and miscellaneous expenses' to 6%. This provided the assessee with a relief of Rs. 4,04,600/-.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it failed to specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following precedent, the Tribunal ruled that such a defective notice renders the penalty invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the relevant provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deal with property received for inadequate consideration, were not applicable for the Assessment Year 2012-13 as the amendment took effect from April 1, 2014.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of 5% of expenses as made by the lower authorities, citing specific discrepancies found in the bills and vouchers. However, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow credit for TDS deducted after verification.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for purchases, finding them to be genuine and citing a High Court decision. A portion of other expenses disallowance was also reduced, while commission disallowance and unexplained cash credit addition were deleted.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for purchases, finding them to be genuine and citing a High Court decision. A portion of other expenses disallowance was also reduced, while commission disallowance and unexplained cash credit addition were deleted.

The Tribunal held that there was no material to suggest the assessee firm was engaged in the entry operation business. The commission income was therefore wrongly assessed in the firm's hands.

The Tribunal held that there was no material on record to suggest the assessee firm was engaged in the entry operation business. Therefore, the commission income could not be assessed in the firm's hands.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and cannot be applied retrospectively without express provision. Since Section 200A of the Act did not have an enabling provision for levying this fee prior to June 1, 2015, the levy was invalid for the period in question.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and cannot be applied retrospectively without express provision. Since Section 200A of the Act did not have an enabling provision for levying this fee prior to June 1, 2015, the levy was invalid for the period in question.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and cannot be applied retrospectively without express provision. Since Section 200A of the Act did not have an enabling provision for levying this fee prior to June 1, 2015, the levy was invalid for the period in question.

The Tribunal held that there was no material on record to suggest the assessee firm was engaged in the entry operation business. Therefore, the commission income could not be assessed in the firm's hands.