ITAT Jaipur Judgments — March 2018

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in adopting the GP rate of 1.40% and directed the Assessing Officer to adopt a GP rate of 1.20% based on past history. The Tribunal also upheld the 10% disallowance on various expenses.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without considering sufficient cause. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to decide on merits, considering the date of service of notice.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions, held that the contribution for Rajasthan House was for the assessee's business benefit, allowing the claim. However, CSR expenses were disallowed as they were considered an appropriation of profit, not directly for business.

The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities that the books of accounts were unreliable and rightly rejected under Section 145(3). The matter was set aside to the AO for a fresh estimation of profit based on past performance.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as the reasons were vague and not supported by tangible material. The addition made by the AO was deleted as it was based on assumptions and the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

The Tribunal held that the income surrendered during the survey was an estimation of expected receipts, not disclosed income. The addition of unexplained investment was confirmed as the source of the balance amount was not adequately explained.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order itself was quashed as invalid, the consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) had no basis and was rightly deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as the reasons were vague and not supported by tangible material. The addition made by the AO was deleted as it was based on assumptions and the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

The Tribunal held that the delay in completing the statutory audit constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in submitting the tax audit report. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to properly examine the documents submitted by the assessee regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transaction. The Tribunal also noted the lack of cross-examination opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee has now been granted registration under Section 12AA and is considered a local authority under Section 10(20) as per jurisdictional High Court rulings, its income is not taxable. The disallowance of depreciation was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as the reasons were vague and not supported by tangible material. The addition made by the AO was deleted as it was based on assumptions and the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as the reasons were vague and not supported by tangible material. The addition made by the AO was deleted as it was based on assumptions and the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as the reasons were vague and not supported by tangible material. The addition made by the AO was deleted as it was based on assumptions and the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as the reasons were vague and not supported by tangible material. The addition made by the AO was deleted as it was based on assumptions and the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as the reasons were vague and not supported by tangible material. The addition made by the AO was deleted as it was based on assumptions and the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted, additions cannot be made by terming corresponding purchases as bogus. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's case and deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A) in the reassessment, allowing the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that while the firm discharged its onus by providing details, the CIT(A) correctly identified a shortfall in explained agricultural income for three partners. The addition made by the AO under Section 68 for the unexplained capital contribution was sustained.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment after four years, when the issue of purchases was already examined in the original scrutiny assessment, amounted to a change of opinion. Therefore, the reassessment was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B was not leviable. The assessee had claimed eligibility for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD, and the AO had accepted this. The penalty is only applicable if the assessee claims income below the presumptive rate and fails to maintain books and get them audited.

The Tribunal held that reassessment under Section 153A is not valid without incriminating material found during a search, especially when the assessment for the relevant years was already completed. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to the rejection of books of accounts and the application of net profit rates.

The Tribunal held that reassessment under Section 153A is not valid without incriminating material found during a search, especially when the assessment for the relevant years was already completed. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to the rejection of books of accounts and the application of net profit rates.

The Tribunal held that reassessment under Section 153A is not valid without incriminating material found during a search, especially when the assessment for the relevant years was already completed. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to the rejection of books of accounts and the application of net profit rates.

The Tribunal held that reassessment under Section 153A is not valid without incriminating material found during a search, especially when the assessment for the relevant years was already completed. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to the rejection of books of accounts and the application of net profit rates.

The Tribunal held that reassessment under Section 153A is not valid without incriminating material found during a search, especially when the assessment for the relevant years was already completed. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to the rejection of books of accounts and the application of net profit rates.

The Tribunal held that reassessment under Section 153A is not valid without incriminating material found during a search, especially when the assessment for the relevant years was already completed. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to the rejection of books of accounts and the application of net profit rates.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal for want of prosecution. This decision was based on the assessee's failure to appear and comply with previous directions.

The Tribunal held that since no fresh advances were made to sister concerns during the year and there was a reduction in outstanding balances, the disallowance of interest by the AO was not justified. The disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 41(1) cannot be made solely based on doubting the genuineness or identity of creditors, or simply because they are old. The cessation of liability must be established, and if the liability is shown in books and repaid later, the addition is unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered additional evidence filed by the assessee without proper examination by the AO. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to produce evidence and comply with notices.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to furnish any explanation regarding the source of the deposits, and the additions were confirmed up to the Tribunal level. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were justified.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered additional evidence filed by the assessee without proper examination by the AO. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to produce evidence and comply with notices.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of bank deposits had been deleted by the ITAT in the first round of appeal. Subsequent proceedings arising from a mistaken set-aside order were deemed unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts was not disputed, but the basis for estimating the GP rate by the AO and CIT(A) was not specified. The Tribunal directed the AO to determine the average GP of the last five years and compare it with the declared GP for appropriate adjustment.

The Tribunal held that contributions to the State Renewal Fund and Energy Conservation Fund were allowable business expenditures as they were for employee welfare and business expediency. It also held that employees' contribution to PF & ESI deposited after the due date but before the due date of filing the return was allowable.

The Tribunal set aside the issue related to the addition under Section 56(2)(b) to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting one more opportunity to the assessee subject to a cost. The ground related to Section 80C deduction was dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the disclosure of Rs. 46,00,000/- post-survey was not voluntary and upheld the penalty on this amount. Penalties on undisclosed sales and unexplained expenses were confirmed at 100%, while penalties related to Section 40(a)(ia) disallowances and Section 263 additions were deleted.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in invoking revisionary powers under Section 263 as the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to a lack of proper inquiry into the share capital transactions.