ITAT Jaipur Judgments — April 2018

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the credits and offered no proper explanation. Therefore, the penalty imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the agricultural land was a capital asset, dismissing the assessee's claim that it was not covered under Section 2(14). The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s view that the exploitation of agricultural land by converting it into residential plots before sale constituted an adventure in the nature of trade, making the income taxable as business income.

The Tribunal held that investment in land in the name of the wife is not eligible for deduction under Section 54B, as the section requires the investment to be made in the assessee's name. The Tribunal also upheld the initiation of reassessment proceedings by the AO.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A), who had elaborately discussed the issue of cash creditors and provided relief where appropriate. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the dominant purpose of conversion was to make the land transferable, not for actual residential use. Since the land was continuously used for agriculture, it should be treated as agricultural land and not a capital asset for capital gains tax.

The Tribunal held that the dominant purpose of conversion was to make the land transferable, not for actual residential use. Since the land was continuously used for agriculture, it should be treated as agricultural land and not a capital asset for capital gains tax.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances. For Section 14A, it was held that amended Rule 8D was not applicable retrospectively and no disallowance was warranted as no exempt income was earned. For Section 36(1)(iii), the AO failed to establish a nexus between borrowed funds and interest-free advances for non-business purposes.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not justified as the assessee had provided share application forms, ROC filings, bank statements, financial statements, and confirmations. The AO failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of third parties whose statements were relied upon. The lump sum disallowance of expenses was also deleted as it was ad-hoc and not based on specific findings.

The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, in its order dated 22.11.2017, had upheld the ITAT's directions from the first round and stated that registration under Section 12AA could not have been granted on a basis that was stayed by the High Court. In the current set-aside proceedings, the Tribunal found that neither party had brought forth any fresh material regarding the status of the cases/matters related to irregularities or illegal activities. The Tribunal observed that mere contentions were advanced without tangible evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the matter again to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to ascertain the present status of all cases relating to the society and their impact on the cancellation of registration, consider the latest order of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, and provide a copy of the AO's report to the assessee. The assessee was advised to provide necessary information for timely completion of proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the dominant purpose of conversion was to make the land transferable, not for actual residential use. Since the land was continuously used for agriculture, it should be treated as agricultural land and not a capital asset for capital gains tax.

The Tribunal held that the dominant purpose of conversion was to make the land transferable, not for actual residential use. Since the land was continuously used for agriculture, it should be treated as agricultural land and not a capital asset for capital gains tax.

The Tribunal held that the dominant purpose of conversion was to make the land transferable, not for actual residential use. Since the land was continuously used for agriculture, it should be treated as agricultural land and not a capital asset for capital gains tax.

The Tribunal held that a show cause notice cannot be equated to a draft assessment order and that failure to provide a draft assessment order renders the final assessment order illegal and without jurisdiction. The assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the dominant purpose of conversion was to make the land transferable, not for actual residential use. Since the land was continuously used for agriculture, it should be treated as agricultural land and not a capital asset for capital gains tax.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's records did not show receipt of the second notice from the CIT. Therefore, to ensure natural justice and in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT for a fresh decision after providing another opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the Assessing Officer lacked valid reasons to believe income had escaped assessment. The reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction and constituted a change of opinion, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of the addition for bogus share capital by the CIT(A) was incorrect, and the disallowances of interest and expenses confirmed by the CIT(A) were justified.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the Assessing Officer lacked valid reasons to believe income had escaped assessment. The reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction and constituted a change of opinion, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that a show cause notice for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must clearly specify the charge, either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Failure to do so renders the notice illegal and the consequential penalty order unsustainable.

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

The Tribunal found that the guidelines from the Technical Education Department regarding the utilization of development fees were not clearly considered. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was not justified. It relied on the binding precedent of the Jurisdictional High Court in similar cases.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was deprived of submitting all relevant records and that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without adequate consideration. Given the complexity and potential for injustice, the appeal was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while filing the audit report is mandatory, the condition of filing it electronically with the return is directory. If the report was filed manually during assessment proceedings, non-filing electronically is a technical breach. The matter was remanded to the AO to verify manual filing and eligibility.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and considered the material on record before passing the assessment order. The Pr.CIT's order under Section 263 was found to be not sustainable as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The tribunal restored the issue of disallowing exemption u/s 10AA on FDR interest to the AO for fresh adjudication with additional evidence for AY 2010-11. For AY 2011-12, the same issue was allowed for statistical purposes, following the decision for AY 2010-11.

The Tribunal held that the mere fact of selling goods to a sister concern at a lower price is not sufficient ground to reject the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the IT Act. Consequently, the addition made by estimating the GP rate was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition of the land should be determined considering its fair market value as on 01.04.1981. It also ruled that the capital gain should be assessed in the hands of all 7 legal heirs who inherited the land and shared the sale consideration, not just the widow.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation with supporting documents like cash books and cash flow statements. These documents demonstrated that the investments were made from cash withdrawals from concerns whose unaccounted receipts had already been taxed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 54 and 54F of the Act, specifically regarding the timely utilization of sale proceeds for acquiring a new asset or depositing it in the Capital Gains Account Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the claim under Section 54F was consequential to an addition made during assessment proceedings, not an income originally declared. Therefore, rejecting it on the technical ground of not filing a revised return was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee not filing the audit report electronically due to a recent amendment in procedural law that might have been overlooked. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271BA was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal, having abused the indulgence shown. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the contributions were paid before the due date of filing the return of income and relied on jurisdictional High Court judgments, the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition of the land should be determined considering its fair market value as on 01.04.1981. It also ruled that the capital gain should be assessed in the hands of all 7 legal heirs who inherited the land and shared the sale consideration, not just the widow.

The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition of the land should be determined considering its fair market value as on 01.04.1981. It also ruled that the capital gain should be assessed in the hands of all 7 legal heirs who inherited the land and shared the sale consideration, not just the widow.

The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition of the land should be determined considering its fair market value as on 01.04.1981. It also ruled that the capital gain should be assessed in the hands of all 7 legal heirs who inherited the land and shared the sale consideration, not just the widow.

The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition of the land should be determined considering its fair market value as on 01.04.1981. It also ruled that the capital gain should be assessed in the hands of all 7 legal heirs who inherited the land and shared the sale consideration, not just the widow.