ITAT Jaipur Judgments — January 2018

The Tribunal found that while the assessee's shifting stand raised doubts, the subsequent explanation regarding third-party deposits for liquor contracts could not be ignored. However, the onus was on the assessee to demonstrate the correlation between deposits, demand drafts, and withdrawals for each individual.

The Tribunal held that the additional income was not voluntarily disclosed in the original return but only offered when the AO reopened the assessment based on incriminating material. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was justified.

The Tribunal found that the AO's addition was based solely on the statement of a third party without proper verification or independent inquiry. The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the share transactions, including dematerialization and market price, was not adequately examined.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 67,50,000/- as unexplained investment and Rs. 1,00,000/- as undeclared commission income was not sustainable. The retracted statement, without corroborating evidence, and the documentary evidence presented by the assessee were considered.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was acting as an agent on commission basis and the genuineness of the payments was not in doubt. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the payment.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 54F is allowable even if the property is not in the assessee's name, relying on judicial precedents. However, the nature of construction (new vs. renovation) and whether it's purely residential requires further factual verification.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It noted that the assessee had not made any statement surrendering the investment amount and that the addition was based solely on the third-party statement of his brother.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 of the Act was invalid as it did not specifically state whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the land, not used for agricultural purposes, was a capital asset and Section 50C was applicable. It also directed reconsideration of Section 14A disallowance, restricting it to mutual fund investments where dividend income was earned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acquired the land on 11.04.2007, as evidenced by the agreement to sale, payment of full consideration, and handing over of possession. Therefore, the capital gain arising from the sale of the land should be treated as Long Term Capital Gain. This decision addressed the first issue, favoring the assessee. Regarding the second issue concerning the deemed sale consideration under Section 50C, the Tribunal found that the DVO's report was based on the Sub-Registrar's value, which may not represent the fair market value. The Tribunal directed that the matter be set aside to the AO/DVO to determine the fair market value in accordance with the circular dated 14.07.2014, and granted the assessee an opportunity of hearing. For the third issue concerning the cost of improvement, the Tribunal allowed the expenditure incurred after the agreement to sale date (11.04.2007) and prior to the sale deed (13.04.2010) as an allowable claim, as the purchase consideration paid prior to the sale deed was accepted. Thus, this issue was decided in favor of the assessee. Ground 4 for AY 2011-12 and Ground 3 for AY 2012-13 were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acquired the land on 11.04.2007, as evidenced by the agreement to sale, payment of full consideration, and handing over of possession. Therefore, the capital gain arising from the sale of the land should be treated as Long Term Capital Gain. This decision addressed the first issue, favoring the assessee. Regarding the second issue concerning the deemed sale consideration under Section 50C, the Tribunal found that the DVO's report was based on the Sub-Registrar's value, which may not represent the fair market value. The Tribunal directed that the matter be set aside to the AO/DVO to determine the fair market value in accordance with the circular dated 14.07.2014, and granted the assessee an opportunity of hearing. For the third issue concerning the cost of improvement, the Tribunal allowed the expenditure incurred after the agreement to sale date (11.04.2007) and prior to the sale deed (13.04.2010) as an allowable claim, as the purchase consideration paid prior to the sale deed was accepted. Thus, this issue was decided in favor of the assessee. Ground 4 for AY 2011-12 and Ground 3 for AY 2012-13 were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the explanation regarding scrap generation and burning loss during manufacturing. It also noted that the Central Excise Appellate Authority had found no sufficient material to establish clandestine removal. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the additions made in both businesses. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11, which applied a Net Profit (NP) rate of 5.1% on turnover.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments not abated due to search, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found. Since no such material was found, the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted the consistent non-appearance of the assessee. Citing precedents, the Tribunal decided not to admit the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the commission payment to the wife was not for legitimate business needs and confirmed its disallowance. However, the Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80E as the loan was taken by the assessee and interest was paid by him. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of interest on advances to the sister concern, as interest-free funds available with the assessee were sufficient.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to appear and pursue its case. The CIT(A) had previously upheld the AO's decision due to the assessee's failure to provide explanations or evidence.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of whether the recipient included the amount in their income and paid tax thereon to the Assessing Officer for verification. If verified, the liability under section 201(1) would be nil, but interest under section 201(1A) would remain.

The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and considered it as a lack of interest in pursuing the case. Following established precedents, the appeal was not admitted.

The Tribunal held that even though Vodafone deducted TDS on the total commission, the assessee was still obligated to deduct TDS on the portion paid to additional dealers, as the commission flowed through the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was an estimated addition made on an ad hoc basis. Relying on various case laws, it was decided that penalty is not automatically leviable when an addition is sustained, especially when it's an estimated trading addition.

The Tribunal is considering the appeal by the Revenue against the CIT(A)'s order. The primary issue revolves around the disallowance of municipal charges claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of whether the recipient included the amount in their income and paid tax thereon to the Assessing Officer for verification. If verified, the liability under section 201(1) would be nil, but interest under section 201(1A) would remain.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) as the income was already estimated after rejecting the books. For Section 43B, the disallowance was set aside, subject to verification that the assessee did not claim the service tax as an expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of account but directed the Assessing Officer to compute the average GP of past years for estimating income. The issue of interest disallowance was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's contentions.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and equity, the matter required re-examination by the Assessing Officer. This was particularly relevant given the assessee's claim of sales and denial of payments, supported by ledger accounts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's book results were better than the preceding years and the AO had not brought on record any positive evidence to enhance the GP. Therefore, the GP addition was deleted. The Tribunal also found the disallowance of expenses to be on the higher side and sustained only a part of it.