ITAT Jaipur Judgments — February 2017

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to admit additional evidence. The grounds of appeal were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering the new evidence and providing an opportunity for a hearing.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding Section 80IB(10) deduction is covered by its previous order, and the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes. The addition made under Section 36(1)(va) was dismissed, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no material to suggest that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It was held that a mere change in the head of income without any change in the quantum of total income does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in rejecting the application. It relied on precedents that charitable activities like providing community halls at subsidized rates for public utility are not necessarily commercial, especially when other charitable objects exist.

The Tribunal allowed the additional ground raised by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is applicable only to capital assets that are land or building or both. In the assessee's case, the capital asset transferred was an 'Arakshan Patra', which represented a right to receive land, not land or a building itself. Therefore, the provisions of Section 50C were not applicable to the transaction. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the addition was deleted. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT's orders, as the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to submit documents but failed to do so. The assessee also did not provide any supporting documents for their appeals.

The Tribunal deleted additions related to unaccounted sales and purchases, finding the evidence insufficient. However, it upheld the addition for stock shortage, deeming it as sales outside books. The addition for cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 was set aside for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible to claim the benefit of the amount surrendered in AY 2007-08, as it represented cash available with the assessee. The addition to the extent of this surrendered amount was deleted.

The Tribunal held that a payment of Rs. 79,392/- was covered under Rule 6DD(j) as it was made on a public holiday. However, other cash payments were not considered exceptional circumstances under Rule 6DD(g). The additions for unaccounted sales and excess stock were confirmed after applying the GP rate from accounted sales and telescoping the stock addition.

The Tribunal, relying on various judicial pronouncements and a similar order by the CIT(A), set aside the penalty order. The AO was directed to delete the penalty imposed.

The Tribunal held that employee's PF contribution deposited after the due date but before the return filing date is not deductible under Section 36(1)(va). However, it ruled that disallowance under Section 43B for service tax is not applicable if the service tax was not payable or not debited to the profit and loss account.

The Tribunal noted that the defects in the appeal were not removed despite intimation. Consequently, the appeal was rejected due to being defective.

The Tribunal held that the disclosure was not voluntary as it was made after a specific query from the Assessing Officer. However, considering the facts and case laws, the Tribunal found that the assessee had acted bonafidely and the mistake was rectified promptly, thus deleting the penalty.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, finding no reason to interfere. The assessee's failure to produce books of accounts cast doubt on the genuineness of its activities, a prerequisite for registration.