ITAT Jaipur Judgments — May 2018

The Tribunal noted a legal objection regarding the AO's failure to specify the exact default and the absence of the show cause notice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal noted a legal objection regarding the AO's failure to specify the exact default and the absence of the show cause notice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the remission of the principal amount of loans, taken for acquiring capital assets and settled under one-time settlement schemes, cannot be treated as the assessee's income. This decision followed earlier rulings by the Tribunal and the Jurisdictional High Court.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was barred by limitation and, in the absence of a reasonable explanation for the delay, found it not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in allowing deductions for employee contributions to PF/ESI if paid before the return filing due date, payments to approved gratuity and pension funds, and bonus payments on a payment basis. The Tribunal followed the Rajasthan High Court's decisions.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided confirmations from the creditors stating the amounts were outstanding. However, due to the lack of specific findings by lower authorities and the unverified nature of the addresses, the matter was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed the deposits were from share sales in FY 2007-08 and were reflected in his cash book. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to examine the cash book entries for FYs 2007-08 and 2008-09.

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271AAA can only be levied in cases where a search under section 132 was initiated against the assessee and the disclosure was made in a statement recorded under section 132(4). Since neither was true in this case, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in allowing deductions for employee contributions to PF/ESI if paid before the return filing due date, payments to approved gratuity and pension funds, and bonus payments on a payment basis. The Tribunal followed the Rajasthan High Court's decisions.

The Tribunal found the AO's addition unjustified. It noted that the assessee's books already showed a higher construction cost than the valuer's report, and the AO did not account for this difference. The addition was also within a tolerance range.

The Tribunal held that the remission of the principal amount of loans, taken for acquiring capital assets and settled under one-time settlement schemes, cannot be treated as the assessee's income. This decision followed earlier rulings by the Tribunal and the Jurisdictional High Court.

The Tribunal held that the remission of the principal amount of loans, taken for acquiring capital assets and settled under one-time settlement schemes, cannot be treated as the assessee's income. This decision followed earlier rulings by the Tribunal and the Jurisdictional High Court.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was under a legal obligation to maintain books of account in a manner that allowed for the computation of total income as per the Income Tax Act. The failure to do so warranted the penalty.

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271AAA can only be levied in cases where a search under section 132 was initiated against the assessee and the disclosure was made in a statement recorded under section 132(4). Since neither was true in this case, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the notice for penalty was sufficiently clear regarding the grounds for initiation. However, it directed the deletion of the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer as it was based on estimates and there was an apparent mistake in the penalty amount.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was under a legal obligation to maintain proper books of account for accurate income computation. Since the assessee failed to do so, the penalty levied under Section 271A was justified.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was unjustified. It relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decisions which held that such contributions, if paid before the due date of filing the return of income, are allowable.