ITAT Ranchi Judgments — April 2023

The Tribunal held that the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. It was further clarified that this dismissal would not affect any other appeals filed by the assessee for different assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to rectify the mistake in filing Form 35 and present her case before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to consider the appeal against the correct assessment order and decide it afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to rectify the mistake in filing Form 35 and present her case before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to consider the appeal against the correct assessment order and decide it afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the first account holder had already declared and paid taxes on the joint deposits, there was no justification for reassessment or additions in the assessee's case. The impugned additions were ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that making a double addition on the same issue and for the same share application money received in earlier years is not justified. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that making a double addition on the same issue and for the same share application money received in earlier years is not justified. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary powers under Section 263 were exercised on vague grounds, substituting his own views without proper basis. The Tribunal found that the reasons for scrutiny were explained, and the PCIT's focus on the objective of investment in unquoted shares was beyond his powers in this context.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of concealed profit from the difference in purchases. However, the addition for unsecured loans was deleted as it was outside the scope of the limited scrutiny assessment.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was vague and did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity indicates a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the surrender was not based on any detected concealed income or incriminating material. Relying on CBDT instructions and a coordinate bench decision, it was concluded that this did not constitute concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars warranting penalty.

The Tribunal held that since the first account holder had already declared and paid taxes on the joint deposits, there was no justification for reassessment or additions in the assessee's case. The impugned additions were ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have examined the audited books of accounts and other documents furnished by the assessee before making an ad hoc estimation of profit. The estimation of profit at 8% was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present her case and furnish relevant documents to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is to decide the issue afresh after providing adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal held that business expenses incurred for maintaining the establishment and complying with statutory provisions cannot be disallowed solely because no business income was generated in the relevant period. The expenses were for protecting the firm's interests and keeping the business alive.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is granted an opportunity to produce relevant evidence, including the cash book, to prove the source of deposits.

The Tribunal held that appellate authorities can examine the entire proceedings to determine correct tax liability and that the assessee cannot be burdened with taxes it is not liable to pay. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to examine the double taxation claim.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee and the Revenue's representative that only the profit element of the differential receipts should be taxed. The AO was directed to apply the gross profit rate of 5.57% to the differential figure.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing for the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective. Therefore, fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, through an intimation under Section 200A.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of fuel, lubricant, and machinery running/maintenance expenses. It found that the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence to substantiate these large claims, justifying the Assessing Officer's ad hoc disallowance.

The Tribunal held that since AY 2016-17 was the first year for e-filing Form 10 and the delay was due to reasonable cause, the AO should consider the belatedly filed Form 10 and grant relief if the assessee is otherwise eligible.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing for the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective. Therefore, fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, through an intimation under Section 200A.

The Tribunal found that cash withdrawals made by the assessee and his father prior to the deposits were sufficient to explain the source of the disputed amount. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to rectify the mistake in filing Form 35 and present her case before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to consider the appeal against the correct assessment order and decide it afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to verify the claim of double addition and to allow the second issue if the assessee proves payees accounted for the amounts and paid taxes.

The Tribunal found that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present his case. The CIT(A)'s ex parte order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessee owned agricultural land with mango trees and had provided tenant farmers' details. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal found that the assessee owned agricultural land with mango trees and had provided tenant farmers' details. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal found that the deposits could be presumed to be out of current income and past savings, especially during demonetization. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.