ITAT Ranchi Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal treated the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn/not pressed due to low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the Assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal treated the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn/not pressed due to low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the Assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to estimate profit at 1%. It noted that the work was largely assigned to JV partners who declared lower profits, and the AO should have considered the past assessment year's profit rate of 0.37%.

The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities failed to appreciate the facts. The purchaser confirmed the transaction and demonstrated his creditworthiness, and there was no prohibition under the Income Tax Act for accepting sale consideration in cash at that time. The Tribunal allowed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the DVO should have used local PWD rates for valuation instead of CPWD rates, as CPWD rates are generally higher. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and partly confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had conducted a detailed examination of the facts and evidence provided by the assessee, taking a plausible view.

The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the PCIT were already examined and accepted by the Assessing Officer (AO) during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's observation that the AO had not verified the details was factually incorrect. The AO had examined the cash and bank books and concluded that the deposits were out of sufficient available cash. Therefore, the conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the cash deposits were from the assessee's cash sales proceeds from the petrol pump business. The CIT(A) had considered all evidence and passed a reasoned order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly appreciated the evidence regarding cash deposits as sale proceeds and correctly identified that the amounts in Form 26AS represented Tax Collected at Source (TCS) on purchases, not income. The estimated addition was also deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the sales and that the addition under Section 69A was incorrect as the amounts were recorded in the assessee's books.