ITAT Jaipur Judgments — June 2017

The Tribunal found that most of the issues raised by the Revenue were covered by earlier decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case or similar cases. For the issues that were not identical, the Tribunal reviewed the submissions and the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated by the CBDT for filing departmental appeals. The appeals were dismissed as not pressed/withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the issues were not properly examined by the lower authorities and the assessee did not provide a reasonable cause for non-appearance or lack of evidence. Therefore, the case was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication, with a direction for a proper opportunity to be given to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that if the deductee has disclosed the income and paid tax, the assessee should not be deemed in default for non-deposit of TDS. It also held that mere book entries, if reversed, do not create an obligation to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal held that if the deductee has disclosed the income and paid tax, the assessee should not be deemed in default for non-deposit of TDS. It also held that mere book entries, if reversed, do not create an obligation to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal held that the initial contribution of land to the firm was a genuine transfer under Section 45(3). Therefore, the subsequent sale deed did not constitute a fresh transfer for capital gains tax purposes. The Tribunal also deleted additions for unexplained expenditure as it was recorded in the firm's books and allowed the addition for agricultural income as the assessee failed to prove its genuineness.

The Tribunal held that interest income received from partners, when advanced as part of business transactions, should be treated as business income. This income should be included in the book profit for computing the allowable remuneration to partners under Section 40(b).

The Tribunal found that the FDRs were pledged as security and there was no evidence they were from the assessee's funds. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee submitted a deed of correction and amendment to its trust deed. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) to consider the amended deed and the assessee's contentions.

The Tribunal noted that the reference to the DVO under Section 142A requires the rejection of books of accounts prior to the reference, as per Supreme Court decisions. Since the record did not clearly establish this sequence, the matter was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide sufficient justification for disallowing the exemption, especially since similar salary payments were accepted in previous assessment years. The CIT(A)'s finding that the salaries were comparable and increased by a reasonable percentage was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in accepting additional evidence under Rule 46A(4) of the IT Rules, as it was necessary to dispose of the appeal. The finding that the loss was speculative was also upheld.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition for conversion charges, finding that the buyer had indeed incurred the expense. It also confirmed that the land became a capital asset only on the later notification date, not the earlier one relied upon by the AO.