ITAT Jaipur Judgments — January 2017

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty. It was noted that Section 271E is attracted for repayment of loans in cash, not for advancing them. The Tribunal followed a previous ITAT decision on a similar issue.

The Tribunal held that remittances by an NRI through banking channels are not subject to income tax in India if they originate from outside India. It also confirmed an addition for an unexplained credit as the assessee failed to provide sufficient explanation.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on fixed assets is separately allowable even if the entire cost was allowed as application of income. This decision was based on precedents from the jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal's own previous rulings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justifiable as the assessee acted in good faith and the non-filing was due to technical issues and the auditor's oversight, not a conscious breach by the assessee. The Tribunal followed a previous similar ruling.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to a CBDT circular limiting appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lacs. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the remaining penalty, citing reasonable cause and the assessee's circumstances as a widow facing financial distress.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to the study centers were in the nature of revenue sharing and not for technical services. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS under Section 194J.

The Tribunal held that the AO ought to have referred the valuation of the property to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) as per Section 50C(2) of the Act, given the assessee's claim of a lesser market value.

The Tribunal upheld the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. It was held that the diversion of interest-bearing funds for non-business purposes by the partner constituted furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, leading to concealment.

The Tribunal held that DEPB benefits are export incentives and do not qualify for deduction under Section 80IB, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Liberty India. The reliance on other Supreme Court judgments was found to be distinguishable as they pertained to Section 80HHC.

The Tribunal held that the investment of Rs. 3,00,000/- made on 31st December 2007 was a switch from an earlier investment and thus explained. However, the issue of Rs. 3,00,752/- was restored to the AO for verification as the assessee claimed no such investment was made on 31st March 2008.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted in a bona fide manner by correcting the mistake and offering the income for taxation during assessment. The absence of due care does not automatically imply concealment of income.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts due to the failure to provide satisfactory explanations regarding the non-disclosure of closing stock for material purchased at the end of the financial year. The Tribunal also confirmed the addition of Rs. 10 lacs made by the CIT(A) based on inflated material consumption.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion. It further ruled that the assessee was entitled to additional depreciation on its power plant and windmill, and the deduction under Section 43B for service tax and land tax was also allowable.

The Tribunal held that the amalgamation scheme, once sanctioned, is operative from the date mentioned in the scheme. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to set off losses and unabsorbed depreciation. However, a protective assessment order was directed to be passed in case the amalgamation scheme is not sanctioned.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that civil structures and power lines integral to windmills are eligible for depreciation at the same rate as the windmill. It also affirmed that delayed deposit of employee's PF & ESI contributions, when paid before the due date of filing the return, does not warrant disallowance.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order in the absence of the assessee. To ensure justice, the assessee was granted a last opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including a confirmation letter and PAN of the payer, to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction were proved. The father had substantial retirement benefits and had made withdrawals from his bank account which were not shown to have been spent elsewhere.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest paid to partners. It was held that capital account debits do not automatically prove utilization for land or building costs, and without supporting documents, the deduction is not allowable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had condoned the delay in filing Form No. 10 but limited the carry forward of income to 15%. The Tribunal held that the issue of carrying forward income exceeding 15% needed to be decided and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the conditions under Section 80IB(10) regarding allotment of flats made before April 1, 2009, would not lead to disallowance even if violated. For allotments made after this date, the conditions must be satisfied. The cross-objection regarding reassessment was rejected.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A), finding no inconsistency or infirmity. It followed previous coordinate bench decisions, noting no change in facts, circumstances, or legal position, and that no stay had been granted by the High Court against those decisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's reasons to be reasonable. The Tribunal also accepted the assessee's clarification regarding a typographical error in the verification of grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the assessee's books of accounts under Section 145(3) due to unverifiable purchases. It also confirmed the treatment of intra-day share transactions as speculative business income under Section 43(5).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had condoned the delay in filing Form No. 10, but the direction to allow carry forward of only 15% of the income was not fully in line with the provisions when Form No. 10 is filed for carrying forward surplus income. The issue of carrying forward income beyond 15% remained to be decided.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the need for substantial justice. For penalties under Section 271D, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to justify the cash transactions exceeding Rs. 20,000, thus upholding the penalty. However, for the penalty under Section 271E, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, following precedents where genuine transactions with known parties were not penalized.

The Tribunal held that the cash transactions were genuine contributions/gifts from real brothers for personal needs and not black money. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271D was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were genuine and did not involve black money, as the returns were accepted and there was no evasion of tax. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271D was not leviable.

The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as additional evidence was not admitted due to prior opportunities being missed. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to low tax effect, and also on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the transactions were genuine, between the company and its directors, and did not involve black money or tax evasion, the penalty under Section 271D was not leviable. The delay in filing one appeal was condoned.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were genuine and undertaken with bona fide intention, ruling out the element of black money. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal decided that penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were not leviable in such cases.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided reasonable explanations for the bank entries. Therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justifiable and should be deleted.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made purely on estimation, especially when the assessee provided explanations that were not found to be false. The additions were based on estimation considering business environment and past history, not on specific defects indicating concealment.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was invalid due to a denial of a fair and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The limited time provided to respond to the show-cause notice, coupled with the haste in passing the order on the last day of the limitation period, violated principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified. Regarding the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/-, the Tribunal accepted the additional evidence filed by the assessee and set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not contest the case before the AO due to a misunderstanding. In the interest of equity and justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for acquiring possession of a new property in lieu of vacating the old property were to be considered as cost of improvement and eligible for deduction. However, a new ground of appeal regarding car expenses was dismissed as it was not raised before the lower appellate authority.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee might not have reflected the entire business in the books, the AO himself admitted that books of accounts were maintained and produced. Therefore, penalty under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books was not leviable.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Ground No. 2 of the appeal was allowed, and the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence without proper inquiry or examination. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for verification and examination of the additional evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. This was to allow the assessee to present fresh evidence regarding the source of funds for the land purchase and properly explain the miscellaneous income.

The Tribunal held that if the employee's contribution to PF and ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, it cannot be disallowed. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.