ITAT Jaipur Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal held that while turnover is generally a proper basis for allocating common expenditure, it may give distorted results when the number of service points for eligible and non-eligible businesses differ significantly. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal should not be filed or pressed if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Since the present appeal fell below this limit and was not covered by exceptions, it was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that while turnover is generally a proper basis for allocating common expenditure, it may give distorted results when the number of service points for eligible and non-eligible businesses differ significantly. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in both appeals was below the Rs. 20 lacs threshold specified by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable as per the circular.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed/withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

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.

The Tribunal observed that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in both appeals was below the Rs. 20 lacs threshold specified by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection as not pressed. The Revenue's appeal was also dismissed as not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed limit as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection as not pressed. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed limit as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection as not pressed. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold limit specified in the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal noted that an amended Form 26AS showed a corrected receipt amount and that the difference in receivables between two balance sheet dates also indicated the receipts pertained to the prior year. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the addition after considering the amended Form 26AS and the balance sheet figures.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the TPO adjustment and several disallowances, finding no error in the lower appellate authority's reasoning. The assessee's cross-objection regarding miscellaneous expenses was partly allowed, while the ground related to donation was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO on account of bogus long-term capital gains was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the AO had not brought any cogent material on record to show that the assessee had introduced unaccounted income in the shape of LTCG. The assessee had produced relevant material, including bank statements and dematerialized account records, substantiating the genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal noted that the holding period of shares should be reckoned from the date of acquiring shares in the amalgamating company (M/s Drishti Suppliers Ltd.) as per Section 2(42A)(c), thus qualifying for long-term capital gains. Consequently, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted. Regarding the addition on account of notional commission under Section 69C, the Tribunal held that since the primary issue of bogus LTCG was reversed, the consequential addition on account of notional commission was also not sustainable and was accordingly deleted. All grounds raised in the appeals were decided in favour of the assessees. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions made by the AO.

The ITAT held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Following the CBDT circular, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO on account of bogus long-term capital gains was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the AO had not brought any cogent material on record to show that the assessee had introduced unaccounted income in the shape of LTCG. The assessee had produced relevant material, including bank statements and dematerialized account records, substantiating the genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal noted that the holding period of shares should be reckoned from the date of acquiring shares in the amalgamating company (M/s Drishti Suppliers Ltd.) as per Section 2(42A)(c), thus qualifying for long-term capital gains. Consequently, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted. Regarding the addition on account of notional commission under Section 69C, the Tribunal held that since the primary issue of bogus LTCG was reversed, the consequential addition on account of notional commission was also not sustainable and was accordingly deleted. All grounds raised in the appeals were decided in favour of the assessees. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO on account of bogus long-term capital gains was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the AO had not brought any cogent material on record to show that the assessee had introduced unaccounted income in the shape of LTCG. The assessee had produced relevant material, including bank statements and dematerialized account records, substantiating the genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal noted that the holding period of shares should be reckoned from the date of acquiring shares in the amalgamating company (M/s Drishti Suppliers Ltd.) as per Section 2(42A)(c), thus qualifying for long-term capital gains. Consequently, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted. Regarding the addition on account of notional commission under Section 69C, the Tribunal held that since the primary issue of bogus LTCG was reversed, the consequential addition on account of notional commission was also not sustainable and was accordingly deleted. All grounds raised in the appeals were decided in favour of the assessees. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that properties held as stock-in-trade cannot be taxed under 'Income from House Property' based on notional annual value immediately after completion. A reasonable period is required for letting out, which was not allowed.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO on account of bogus long-term capital gains was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the AO had not brought any cogent material on record to show that the assessee had introduced unaccounted income in the shape of LTCG. The assessee had produced relevant material, including bank statements and dematerialized account records, substantiating the genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal noted that the holding period of shares should be reckoned from the date of acquiring shares in the amalgamating company (M/s Drishti Suppliers Ltd.) as per Section 2(42A)(c), thus qualifying for long-term capital gains. Consequently, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted. Regarding the addition on account of notional commission under Section 69C, the Tribunal held that since the primary issue of bogus LTCG was reversed, the consequential addition on account of notional commission was also not sustainable and was accordingly deleted. All grounds raised in the appeals were decided in favour of the assessees. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO on account of bogus long-term capital gains was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the AO had not brought any cogent material on record to show that the assessee had introduced unaccounted income in the shape of LTCG. The assessee had produced relevant material, including bank statements and dematerialized account records, substantiating the genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal noted that the holding period of shares should be reckoned from the date of acquiring shares in the amalgamating company (M/s Drishti Suppliers Ltd.) as per Section 2(42A)(c), thus qualifying for long-term capital gains. Consequently, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted. Regarding the addition on account of notional commission under Section 69C, the Tribunal held that since the primary issue of bogus LTCG was reversed, the consequential addition on account of notional commission was also not sustainable and was accordingly deleted. All grounds raised in the appeals were decided in favour of the assessees. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO on account of bogus long-term capital gains was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the AO had not brought any cogent material on record to show that the assessee had introduced unaccounted income in the shape of LTCG. The assessee had produced relevant material, including bank statements and dematerialized account records, substantiating the genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal noted that the holding period of shares should be reckoned from the date of acquiring shares in the amalgamating company (M/s Drishti Suppliers Ltd.) as per Section 2(42A)(c), thus qualifying for long-term capital gains. Consequently, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted. Regarding the addition on account of notional commission under Section 69C, the Tribunal held that since the primary issue of bogus LTCG was reversed, the consequential addition on account of notional commission was also not sustainable and was accordingly deleted. All grounds raised in the appeals were decided in favour of the assessees. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO on account of bogus long-term capital gains was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the AO had not brought any cogent material on record to show that the assessee had introduced unaccounted income in the shape of LTCG. The assessee had produced relevant material, including bank statements and dematerialized account records, substantiating the genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal noted that the holding period of shares should be reckoned from the date of acquiring shares in the amalgamating company (M/s Drishti Suppliers Ltd.) as per Section 2(42A)(c), thus qualifying for long-term capital gains. Consequently, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted. Regarding the addition on account of notional commission under Section 69C, the Tribunal held that since the primary issue of bogus LTCG was reversed, the consequential addition on account of notional commission was also not sustainable and was accordingly deleted. All grounds raised in the appeals were decided in favour of the assessees. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment after four years without obtaining the requisite sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid. The addition of interest income was confirmed as the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on prior inquiry and findings in another assessment year. The issue of cost of construction was decided in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes in one appeal.

The Tribunal held that the interest on the HDFC loan was rightly claimed as it was credited to the firm's account and used for working capital, with no evidence of diversion for non-business purposes. The lump sum addition for household expenses was also deleted due to sufficient drawings and lack of supporting evidence for the addition.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on prior inquiry and findings in another assessment year. The issue of cost of construction was decided in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes in one appeal.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on prior inquiry and findings in another assessment year. The issue of cost of construction was decided in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes in one appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the rejection of books of accounts and the estimation of net profit were not justified. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided suitable explanations for the extraordinary items that led to the fall in net profit.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on prior inquiry and findings in another assessment year. The issue of cost of construction was decided in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes in one appeal.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on prior inquiry and findings in another assessment year. The issue of cost of construction was decided in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes in one appeal.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment after four years without obtaining the requisite sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid. The addition of interest income was confirmed as the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting.

The Tribunal held that there was a direct nexus between the exempt income and the interest expenditure incurred on partners' capital, attracting Section 14A. However, the disallowance was to be restricted to the interest on fresh investments made during the year.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get proper service of notice and an adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

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

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

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed threshold limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Following precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the Rs. 20 lakh threshold specified by the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was less than Rs. 20 lakhs. As per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.

The tribunal upheld the disallowance of brokerage as it was not satisfactorily justified and appeared to be a colourable device. The claim for guest house maintenance was also disallowed due to lack of evidence of business use.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that if the payments were made before the due date of filing the return of income, they are allowable, even if delayed beyond the statutory due dates under the respective Acts. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance without considering admitted facts.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which directs that departmental appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lacs should not be filed or pressed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of employees' contribution to ESI & PF is covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Regarding Section 14A, it was held that no disallowance is warranted when the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds and no fresh investment was made. The Tribunal also held that the amendment to Section 115JB was remedial and curative, thus retrospective.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, departmental appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 20 lacs should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since the present appeals fall under this category, they are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid as it did not specify the limb under Section 271(1)(c) for which penalty was proposed. Furthermore, even if the additions were sustained, the assessee's explanation for cash credits was considered bonafide, thus not warranting penalty.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, departmental appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 20 lacs should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since the present appeals fall under this category, they are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled the levy of fee under Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of fee for the period prior to this date was not permissible.