ITAT Jaipur Judgments — June 2018

The Tribunal, following a previous order for an identical issue in the assessee's own case for AY 2013-14, restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1,00,000/- to maintain consistency and for equity and justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's appeals, citing the provisions for cross-objections and the assessee's intent to protect its interest. The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was invalid as the proper procedure was Section 153C/153A, thus quashing the reassessment order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's appeals, citing the provisions for cross-objections and the assessee's intent to protect its interest. The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was invalid as the proper procedure was Section 153C/153A, thus quashing the reassessment order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's appeals, citing the provisions for cross-objections and the assessee's intent to protect its interest. The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was invalid as the proper procedure was Section 153C/153A, thus quashing the reassessment order.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding no infirmity in the reopening of the assessment or the addition made on account of the difference in contract receipts. The assessee's failure to provide ledger accounts further supported the addition.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the written submissions filed before the ITAT. This was done in the interest of equity and justice.

The Tribunal held that filing the tax audit report in Form 10CCB during the assessment proceedings, before the assessment order was passed, is sufficient. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments which held that such filing is directory, not mandatory.

The Tribunal held that for availing exemption under Section 11(1)(a), the primary condition is the application of income for charitable purposes. While Section 11(5) prescribes modes of investment for accumulated or set-apart amounts, non-compliance with Section 11(5) read with Section 13(1)(d) does not automatically deprive the trust of exemption under Section 11, especially when registration under Section 12AA is granted. The Tribunal noted that Section 13(1)(d) relates to investment/deposit modes. Violation of these modes would attract Section 164(2) for taxing income derived from such investments at the maximum marginal rate, not the principal amount itself. Following the decision in Santokba Durlabhji Trust Fund vs. ITO, the Tribunal ruled that only the income from the investment made in violation of Section 11(5) would be taxable. Since the income on such investment was earned in the subsequent year, no addition was called for in the year under consideration, either on the principal amount or the income from it. The orders of the authorities below were set aside, and the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) due to the unusual variation in purchase and sale prices of mustard seeds. However, the addition made by the AO was set aside to be re-computed based on the average GP rate specifically for the mustard seeds trading segment.

The Tribunal found that the authorities below had contradictory findings regarding the deposit of tax and the reasons for non-filing. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO to reconsider the assessee's explanation regarding the delay in filing the TDS statements.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was within the period of limitation, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. Furthermore, the Tribunal found the AO's order under sections 201/201(1A) to be barred by limitation as per the provisions existing at the relevant time.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Rajasthan High Court's ruling that the assessee is a local authority eligible for exemption under Section 10(20). The High Court had previously held that UIT's functions were statutory and for urban development, falling under the purview of a local authority.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of notice under section 153A for AY 2014-15 was beyond the AO's powers as it was the search year. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided evidence to establish the nexus for the interest expenses, directing deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal found that the authorities below had contradictory findings regarding the deposit of tax and the reasons for non-filing. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO to reconsider the assessee's explanation regarding the delay in filing the TDS statements.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were invalid as they did not specify the limb of the provision under which the penalty was being initiated. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition for house property income as part of the property was self-occupied. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal noted that the amended provisions of Section 115BBE were prospective and did not apply to the assessment year in question. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had erred in refusing set off of business loss against income brought to tax under Section 69B read with Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal found that the authorities below had contradictory findings regarding the deposit of tax and the reasons for non-filing. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO to reconsider the assessee's explanation regarding the delay in filing the TDS statements.

The Tribunal found that the authorities below had contradictory findings regarding the deposit of tax and the reasons for non-filing. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO to reconsider the assessee's explanation regarding the delay in filing the TDS statements.

The Tribunal held that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) on account of closing stock valuation for most items were made on an ad-hoc basis and were not justified. Following its own precedent in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, the Tribunal directed the deletion of these additions.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition was deleted on merits, the protective addition made by the AO could not survive. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income is earned. For commission payments, it was found that the AO applied an incorrect benchmark, and since the rates paid to related parties were reasonable and comparable, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was not justified. The assessee had obtained a conclusive certificate under the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016, which barred reopening of the penalty issue. The Assessing Officer also failed to specify the relevant sub-clause of Section 271AAB in the notice.

The Tribunal held that the issue of exemption under Section 10(19A) for the palace was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order allowing the exemption was upheld.

The Tribunal held that for delays less than one year from the due date, if taxes, fees, and interest were paid, the penalty should be deleted. However, for a delay exceeding one year, the penalty was confirmed as no reasonable cause was demonstrated.

The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act is only for travel within India. Reimbursements for foreign travel are taxable, and the assessee is liable for TDS.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal on technical grounds of limitation without adjudicating on merits. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was not justified. The assessee had received a certificate under the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016, which made the penalty issue conclusive and barred reopening. The Pr. CIT also failed to provide a clear finding on the applicability of Section 271AAB(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice for penalty was invalid because it did not specify the grounds or clauses under section 271AAB under which the penalty was leviable. Furthermore, the income in question was found recorded in 'other documents' maintained in the normal course, thus not falling under the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per section 271AAB.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAB was not sustainable. It was found that the income in question was recorded in 'other documents' maintained in the normal course and thus did not fall under the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per the explanation to section 271AAB.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions as the Rs. 2 crores was a settled transaction recorded in books, and the Rs. 3.35 crores was a contingent receivable that did not materialize. The acceptance of additional evidence by CIT(A) was also found to be in order.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income has been earned by the assessee. This was based on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. and the Special Bench in Vireet Investment.

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271AAA of the IT Act is not attracted when the disclosure of income is made in a statement recorded under section 131, and not during a search and seizure action under section 132(4) in the assessee's case. The assessment being framed under section 153C further confirmed that no search was conducted in the assessee's premises.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing part of the interest paid. It applied the rule of consistency, noting that similar interest payments at the same rate were allowed in previous years without disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the valuation under Section 50C needed to consider factors adversely affecting the fair market value, such as existing tenancies. For one property, the valuation was to be determined by the DVO, considering the tenant's construction. For the other, the stamp duty valuation needed segregation for land and building, and the sale to the tenant was a relevant factor.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The AO failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination and did not bring any material to disprove the assessee's case.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The AO failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination and did not produce material to disprove the genuineness of the documents.

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271AAA of the IT Act is not attracted when the disclosure of income is made in a statement recorded under section 131, and not during a search and seizure action under section 132(4) in the assessee's case. The assessment being framed under section 153C further confirmed that no search was conducted in the assessee's premises.

The Tribunal held that Section 194-IA is not applicable as the consideration paid to each individual owner was less than Rs. 50,00,000. Consequently, the levy of interest and late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the contentions raised by the assessee in the Section 154 application involved fresh facts and investigation, which are beyond the scope of rectification. Therefore, the application for rectification was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deductions under sections 54B and 54F on technical grounds or due to a bonafide claim does not constitute concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Since the Tribunal had allowed the claim under section 54F in the quantum appeal, the basis for the penalty ceased to exist.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the assessee was not entitled to higher depreciation as the vehicles were used for their own construction business and not for hiring out.