Loading ITAT cases…
661 tribunal orders from the Jaipur bench in 2017.
Showing 40 of 661 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The tribunal held that the cash found was not unexplained income of the company, as the director's explanation of personal withdrawals was plausible. The addition of Rs. 29,860 was deleted as it was offered for tax in a subsequent year. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) was also deleted, considering the business exigencies and individual payments being below the threshold.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making additions solely based on the retracted statement without corroborating evidence. However, where discrepancies remained unreconciled after survey, the AO was justified in rejecting the books of accounts and making additions based on a reasonable GP rate.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO failed to provide specific defects to justify rejecting the books of account. The disallowance for late deposit of PF/ESI was also deleted based on the assessee depositing before the return filing due date. The addition under Section 14A was deleted as no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action of adopting a lower fair market value for the land. The comparable sale instances used by the DVO were not appropriate for the assessee's land.
The Tribunal held that Section 271B penalty is not applicable as the turnover recorded in the books of account did not exceed the limit. For Section 271(1)(c), the penalty was quashed due to the AO not specifying the grounds for penalty in the notice.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B is not leviable as the turnover recorded in the books of account did not exceed the limit. For Section 271(1)(c), the penalty was quashed as the notice did not specify the exact ground for penalty, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the commission paid to the non-resident agent for procuring orders abroad did not constitute fees for technical services. Therefore, the obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195 did not arise.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding the validity of the show cause notice. It held that the show cause notice issued by the DCIT (Hqr.) was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(23C)(vi), which requires the notice to be issued by the prescribed authority. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the CIT(Exemptions) was bad in law. Regarding the substantive issues, the Tribunal found that the salary paid to the members of the Bakshi family was commensurate with their qualifications, experience, and responsibilities, and consistent with past decisions of coordinate benches. It also held that the foreign travel expenditure was for an educational tour by teaching staff along with the Director, and not an undue benefit to a specified person. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemptions) and restored the approval granted under Section 10(23C)(vi) to the assessee. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on the sworn statements of interested parties, without providing an opportunity for cross-examination and without independent corroborating evidence, are not sustainable. The Tribunal also noted that no incriminating documents were found regarding one of the plot purchases.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act is prospective, not retrospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions, depreciation is allowable even if the capital expenditure was allowed as an application of income.
The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and inferred a lack of interest in pursuing the case. Following precedent, the appeal was not admitted and was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the matter required a fresh look at the Assessing Officer's level. The issue was restored to the AO to decide as per law after providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the Hon'ble High Court had ruled in favour of the assessee in the quantum appeal, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. The penalty was consequential to the quantum addition.
The Tribunal held that blaming the auditor without any supporting evidence does not constitute a reasonable cause for the failure to file the audit report online. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was rightly sustained.
The Tribunal held that the commission payments were for business purposes and were not illegal gratification. The recipients had declared the income, TDS was deducted, and the payments were made through banking channels. The addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that MCI regulations primarily restrict medical practitioners, not pharmaceutical companies. Furthermore, the genuineness of the expenditure was not doubted. Therefore, disallowance based on MCI regulations and the CBDT circular was not justified.
The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 54 is available only for one residential house, not for multiple properties. Therefore, the claim for the second house purchase was disallowed.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the matter on merits after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the finalization of the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of excess commission paid to specified persons under Section 40A(2)(b) due to the excessive rate compared to market norms. It also sustained the disallowance of supervision charges for lack of evidence of services rendered and non-compliance with notices.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the prescribed limitation period. The relevant date for considering the limitation under Section 150(2) was the date of the CIT(A)'s order, not the subsequent Tribunal order, and by that date, the limitation had expired.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on estimation and not on a finding of inflated purchases or suppressed income. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the addition is based solely on estimation without a definitive finding of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was deleted following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted by the ITAT, the penalty imposed on those additions could not be sustained. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted by the ITAT, the penalty imposed on those additions cannot be sustained. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B is leviable for failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JA/115JB, following Supreme Court and High Court decisions. The provisions of Section 115JC were distinguished from Section 115JB in relation to advance tax liability.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate her claim of being a sub-broker and that the cash deposits belonged to clients. The Tribunal also ruled that speculation losses cannot be set off against income taxed under Section 69.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction. It followed its own previous orders and the High Court's decision which held that open terraces, being uncovered and without construction, are not to be included in the built-up area for the purpose of Section 80IB(14)(a).
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT lacked jurisdiction to revise the assessment order under Section 263 because the same issue had already been considered and decided by the CIT(A). The Tribunal also noted that the show-cause notice was not properly served on the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the deletion of addition made under Section 69A for Rs. 3,00,000/- as the transaction was reflected in the books of accounts. However, grounds related to unexplained cash credits were dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the cash balance as per books was more than the physical cash found. While expenditure might have been incurred or cash used for personal purposes, it was not a case where the cash found was unrecorded. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
Since the assessee did not appear for the hearing, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals without admission.
Since the assessee did not appear for the hearing, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals without admission.
The tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the case. Following precedent, the appeals were not admitted.
The Tribunal held that the confessional statements made during the search and post-search investigation, corroborated by other evidence, were reliable. Retractions made later without substantial support were not accepted.
The tribunal dismissed the ground regarding jurisdiction, partly allowed the appeal concerning agricultural income and bank deposits, and allowed the ground regarding set-off of agricultural income against other additions for statistical purposes. Interest under sections 234A and 234B was held to be mandatory.
The tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the case. Following precedent, the appeals were not admitted.
The Tribunal held that the excess stock found during the survey is related to the assessee's regular business and should be assessed as business income. Consequently, the disallowance of partner remuneration needs to be re-examined.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was not specifically questioned about the manner of earning the undisclosed income during the search, penalty under Section 271AAB(1)(c) was not justified. The penalty was modified to 10% under Section 271AAB(1)(a).
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was confirmed due to lack of evidence. The addition on account of unexplained cash was restored to the AO for fresh verification. The issue regarding treating surrendered stock as business income was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order due to non-service of notices. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.