ITAT Jaipur Judgments — July 2018

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly recasted the cash flow statement and determined there was no shortfall of funds. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of negative balance was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly recasted the cash flow statement and determined there was no shortfall of funds. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of negative balance was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly recasted the cash flow statement and determined there was no shortfall of funds. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of negative balance was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly recasted the cash flow statement and determined there was no shortfall of funds. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of negative balance was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly recasted the cash flow statement and determined there was no shortfall of funds. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of negative balance was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly recasted the cash flow statement and determined there was no shortfall of funds. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of negative balance was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly recasted the cash flow statement and determined there was no shortfall of funds. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of negative balance was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly recasted the cash flow statement and determined there was no shortfall of funds. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of negative balance was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly recasted the cash flow statement and determined there was no shortfall of funds. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of negative balance was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly recasted the cash flow statement and determined there was no shortfall of funds. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of negative balance was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly recasted the cash flow statement and determined there was no shortfall of funds. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of negative balance was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly recasted the cash flow statement and determined there was no shortfall of funds. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of negative balance was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the threshold limit specified by the CBDT. Following the circular, the Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that if the AO reopens an assessment based on specific information and later finds that the alleged escaped income did not actually escape assessment, the AO cannot make additions on other unrelated grounds without issuing a fresh notice. The reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the threshold limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the Rs. 20 lacs threshold specified by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the threshold limit set by the CBDT. Following the CBDT circular, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The issue did not fall under the exceptions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly recasted the cash flow statement and determined there was no shortfall of funds. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of negative balance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 80AC are clear and unambiguous, mandating the filing of the return by the due date for claiming deductions under Section 80IA. Therefore, the deduction cannot be allowed if the return is filed late.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was acting merely as an authorized agent for the sale of land owned by other companies. Since the payments were accounted for in the books of the seller companies, there was no scope for making additions in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was acting merely as an authorized agent for the sale of land owned by other companies. Since the payments were accounted for in the books of the seller companies, there was no scope for making additions in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the threshold limit specified by the CBDT. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as per the circular.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT cannot invoke Section 263 solely for a lack of proper inquiry if the AO has conducted some inquiry and taken a possible view. The Pr. CIT must demonstrate that the AO's order is erroneous on merits and unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the substantiation of the manner of earning income by the corporate entities, which owned the major share of the undisclosed income, would have a bearing on the penalty levied on the individual assessees. Since the outcome of penalty proceedings in those companies was not available, the matter was set aside to the AO for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was uncalled for. It noted that the sale deed reflected the actual consideration, and without proving that the assessee invested more than what was recorded, the addition based on an earlier agreement was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the advances were made in the normal course of business and were supported by evidence. The unsecured loans were also found to be duly supported by evidence from the creditors.

The Tribunal confirmed the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c), agreeing with the CIT(A) that the assessee failed to substantiate the explanation for cash deposits in their bank account. The plea regarding the validity of permission from the Additional Commissioner was also dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circulars. The Tribunal found that the issue did not fall under the exceptions mentioned in the circulars for contesting appeals with low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated a reasonable cause for repaying the loan in cash, as the lender insisted on cash payment. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271E was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the substantiation of the manner of earning income by the corporate entities, which owned the major share of the undisclosed income, would have a bearing on the penalty levied on the individual assessees. Since the outcome of penalty proceedings in those companies was not available, the matter was set aside to the AO for reconsideration.

The Tribunal restored the issues concerning salary to relatives and the freight liability to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, referencing a similar decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. The issue of expense disallowances was also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration based on his prior year's order.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. While the disallowance of bonus was deleted due to lack of evidence of shareholding, the disallowance of ESI payments as penalty was sustained, but the disallowance of Service Tax was deleted as it was a regular demand.

The Tribunal held that since mobile companies directly paid commission to retailers/sub-dealers and deducted TDS, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS. The issue of underreported commission was remitted to the AO for verification of reconciliation.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed as not pressed/withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to submit additional evidence, including bank statements, to prove the genuineness of the share application money. Considering the evidence and relevant case laws, the Tribunal held that money brought into India by non-residents for investment is not liable to Indian Income Tax.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee, which was purely legal and based on available records. The matter was set aside to the AO to verify if the property was stock-in-trade.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 37 days, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient cause due to the preoccupancy of the authorized representative. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte and that the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices due to shifting. The Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case, subject to a cost.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the CIT(A)'s letter, not the AO's independent belief. The AO had already taken a consistent stand in prior proceedings concerning M/s. Rasal Builders, and the subsequent reopening was in compliance with the appellate authority's direction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee has the option to choose between the book value method or the DCF method for share valuation, and the AO cannot discard the chosen method. While the AO can examine the methodology and assumptions, the objections raised were not substantial enough to challenge the DCF valuation.

The Tribunal decided that the assessee did not show sufficient interest in pursuing the appeals. Following precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals.

The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity to rectify the defect violated the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) should have allowed the assessee to file the appeal electronically and then decided on merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by invoking Section 50C was not as per law. It noted that the assessee sold the land for Rs. 10,00,000/-, which was the value adopted by the Sub-Registrar-IV, Jaipur. There was no reference regarding the valuation of the property by the Sub-Registrar to any higher authorities, and the Collector (Stamps) valuation of Rs. 81,58,722/- applied to the assessee's brothers, not directly to the assessee's sale deed. The Tribunal cited that Section 50C is a deeming provision and cannot be invoked when there is no difference between the sale consideration declared and the value adopted by the Registrar, or when no reference for valuation was made to the Collector (Stamps). Since the assessee sold the land at the prevailing DLC rate accepted by the Sub-Registrar, the addition invoking Section 50C was deleted. Consequently, the addition was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The additional grounds raised by the assessee were rendered academic and did not require adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT (Exemptions) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT (Exemptions) had focused only on one object clause (object no. 3) of the Memorandum of Association, which dealt with informal education, coaching classes, and vocational training, while ignoring the other six broader charitable objects. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Memorandum of Association included significant objects such as setting up hospitals, medical colleges, promoting formal education, and general welfare activities. Furthermore, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that even if object no. 3 might not strictly fall under the term 'education', the CIT (Exemptions) failed to consider whether it qualified as 'any other object of general public utility' under Section 2(15). The Tribunal directed the CIT (Exemptions) to decide the applications afresh after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and considering the observations made by the Tribunal. The issue of Section 80G approval was also set aside as consequential.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT (Exemptions) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT (Exemptions) had focused only on one object clause (object no. 3) of the Memorandum of Association, which dealt with informal education, coaching classes, and vocational training, while ignoring the other six broader charitable objects. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Memorandum of Association included significant objects such as setting up hospitals, medical colleges, promoting formal education, and general welfare activities. Furthermore, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that even if object no. 3 might not strictly fall under the term 'education', the CIT (Exemptions) failed to consider whether it qualified as 'any other object of general public utility' under Section 2(15). The Tribunal directed the CIT (Exemptions) to decide the applications afresh after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and considering the observations made by the Tribunal. The issue of Section 80G approval was also set aside as consequential.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their entire cost was treated as application of income in earlier years. This is based on Supreme Court decisions which clarify that depreciation is a legitimate deduction in computing the real income of a trust.