ITAT Ranchi Judgments — March 2020

The Tribunal held that imposing penalties for non-maintenance of books of account is incorrect when the assessee is assessed under Section 44AF, a presumptive scheme that does not mandate book-keeping. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the regular assessment under Section 143(3) did not support the allegation of non-compliance. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned penalty.

The Tribunal held that specifying the limb for penalty proceedings is mandatory at the time of finalization of assessment. Relying on various High Court judgments, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention.

The Tribunal found that the issue required a fresh reconciliation. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal allowed the deletion of addition for one cash creditor due to sufficient evidence but confirmed the addition for another creditor who failed to appear. It also allowed higher depreciation on certain vehicles and restricted estimated disallowances for repair and miscellaneous expenses.

The Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained investment was not sustainable as the assessee had provided details of payments. The addition for gross profit on non-disclosed turnover was also deleted as the transactions were found to be non-trading.

The Tribunal allowed a lump sum disallowance of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 75,000 respectively for the cost of improvement, stating it would meet the ends of justice. It also directed the deletion of the addition made under Section 50C for leasehold rights.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The assessee's cross objections were dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal found that neither party's stand was entirely justifiable. Consequently, the addition was restricted to a lump sum of Rs. 3,00,000, with a clear directive that this decision would not set a precedent.

The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done because the CIT(A) had passed ex parte orders, and there was no clear indication of proper service of the last hearing notice.

The Tribunal deleted the addition, finding that the credit instances from the wife's concerns exceeded the alleged difference in turnover. Therefore, the profit estimation in the assessee's hands was not justified as it did not represent the taxpayer's income.

The tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not clearly specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following precedent, the tribunal found the penalty imposition to be invalid.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, considering that the issue of cash deposits might not be present in the current application. The CIT(Exemption) was also directed to await the High Court's final judgment.

The Tribunal noted the CBDT's new SOP for examining bogus share transactions and the assessee's failure to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Consequently, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the CBDT's new SOP for examining bogus share transactions and the assessee's failure to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed a partial relief on the disallowance of expenses, reducing it to Rs. 1 lakh. However, the addition for unverifiable sundry creditors was upheld as the assessee failed to prove their genuineness.

The Tribunal acknowledged the CBDT's new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for examining alleged bogus share transactions. Considering this development, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The assessee's cross objections were dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The assessee's cross objections were dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that imposing penalties for non-maintenance of books of account is incorrect when the assessee is assessed under Section 44AF, a presumptive scheme that does not mandate book-keeping. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that imposing penalties for non-maintenance of books of account is incorrect when the assessee is assessed under Section 44AF, a presumptive scheme that does not mandate book-keeping. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done because the CIT(A) had passed ex parte orders, and there was no clear indication of proper service of the last hearing notice.

The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done because the CIT(A) had passed ex parte orders, and there was no clear indication of proper service of the last hearing notice.

The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done because the CIT(A) had passed ex parte orders, and there was no clear indication of proper service of the last hearing notice.

The Tribunal held that specifying the limb for penalty proceedings is mandatory at the time of finalization of assessment. Relying on various High Court judgments, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention.

The Tribunal held that specifying the limb for penalty proceedings is mandatory at the time of finalization of assessment. Relying on various High Court judgments, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The assessee's cross objections were dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable in cases of partial default in TDS deduction. It also noted the absence of material suggesting a contractual liability for transportation.

The Tribunal held that a reference under Section 50C(2) of the Act is mandatory, even if not raised by the taxpayer. Since no such reference was made, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the house property income issue to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. The disallowance of expenses was restricted from 50% to 10%.

The Tribunal found that crucial factual aspects regarding the land's agricultural nature and its proximity to a municipality needed fresh consideration. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on contract expenses to 1% of the total expenses. For salary, miscellaneous, travelling, and convenience expenses, the Tribunal upheld 50% of the disallowances made by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on contract expenses to 1% of the total expenses. For salary, miscellaneous, travelling, and convenience expenses, the Tribunal upheld 50% of the disallowances made by the lower authorities.

The tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs as unexplained cash credits, finding that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. However, the ad hoc disallowance of general expenses was deleted as it was not based on any discrepancy.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element of the excess stock addition should be made, directing the AO to add an estimated profit of Rs. 50,000/-. The addition of Rs. 33,000/- was affirmed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication, as the lower appellate authority failed to consider relevant documents. All other incidental issues related to the section 54F deduction claim were also to be considered.

The Tribunal affirmed the lower appellate authority's decision to treat the assessee's share application money of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits. This was due to the assessee's failure to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investor(s).

The Tribunal held that in such circumstances, the presumption is that cash deposits form part of the turnover. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the impugned addition was deleted.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 6,86,400, finding the assessee had discharged its onus by explaining the source of funds. It also held that a lump sum estimation of 5% for certain expenses was justified, rather than the higher disallowance made by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs.3,07,600/-. The assessee failed to provide returns for preceding years to support the claim of an opening cash balance, a reasoning also adopted by the lower appellate authority.

The tribunal restored the gross profit addition issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication to consider cash sales. A lumpsum disallowance of Rs. 50,000 was made for salary paid in cash, without it being a precedent.

The Tribunal noted the CBDT's SOP for examining share transactions and the assessee's failure to prove genuineness. Consequently, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) himself acknowledged TDS was deducted on actual payments. The issue of whether TDS should have been deducted on mere provisions requires further factual and legal adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) himself acknowledged TDS was deducted on actual payments. The issue of whether TDS should have been deducted on mere provisions requires further factual and legal adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) himself acknowledged TDS was deducted on actual payments. The issue of whether TDS should have been deducted on mere provisions requires further factual and legal adjudication.