ITAT Jaipur Judgments — September 2018

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's registration under Section 12AA was restored by the ITAT and upheld by the High Court, the denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's selective application of the FIFO method for closing stock valuation was arbitrary and against consistency. It also found that the disallowance of salary to family members was unsustainable without determining fair market value. However, the disallowance of business expenses due to lack of vouchers was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared on multiple occasions and appeared to be uninterested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was initiated in respect of loans accepted by the assessee, not for additions sustained as unexplained income. The assessee failed to provide evidence for exceptions under Rule 6DD.

The Tribunal found that the death of the assessee during the pendency of the appeal, and shortly after filing it, warranted a fresh opportunity. The CIT(A)'s ex parte order was set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to consider the documents supporting the change of address and decide the penalty on merits. This was done in the interest of justice and fair play.

The Tribunal held that the creditworthiness of the father to gift Rs. 5 lacs was satisfied, and the gift from the mother out of household savings was reasonable. However, the brother's capacity to gift Rs. 1.5 lacs, equivalent to ten months' salary, was not considered reasonable.

The Tribunal found that the incorrect address on the postal receipt indicated a mistake in sending the submissions, not a deliberate default. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a possible view by applying the net profit rate on contract receipts after due enquiry. The PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was not sustainable as the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The ITAT dismissed the appeal arising from the Section 154 order, holding that the issues raised were debatable and beyond the scope of rectification. For the appeal against the assessment order, the ITAT condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause due to the assessee pursuing the rectification remedy, and remanded the matter for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that interest on late deposit of TDS is not deductible as a business expense, following established jurisprudence. Regarding loading charges, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination based on the assessee's ability to prove the bona fides of treating the debt as bad.

The Tribunal held that interest on late deposit of TDS is not deductible as a business expense, following established jurisprudence. Regarding loading charges, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination based on the assessee's ability to prove the bona fides of treating the debt as bad.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's petition for condonation of delay. It held that ignorance of tax laws is not a reasonable cause and the delay was due to the assessee's negligence. The appeal was not admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the payment was not a repayment of loan or deposit but was towards remuneration and rent payable to the director. Therefore, Section 269T was not attracted, and no penalty under Section 271E was leviable.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal found that the notice was sent to an incorrect address and set aside the issue to the AO for proper inquiry at the correct address.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal found that the notice was sent to an incorrect address and set aside the issue to the AO for proper inquiry at the correct address.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account was not justified as no specific defects were pointed out by the Assessing Officer. The issue of freight charges was set aside for limited re-examination by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account was not justified as no specific defects were pointed out by the Assessing Officer. The issue of freight charges was set aside for limited re-examination by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account was not justified as no specific defects were pointed out by the Assessing Officer. The issue of freight charges was set aside for limited re-examination by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was done after four years from the end of the assessment year, and the proviso to Section 147 was attracted. The assessee had disclosed material facts during the original assessment, and the AO's belief for reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction.

The Tribunal held that the impugned penalty order was passed without initiating penalty proceedings or issuing a show cause notice, making it illegal and void ab initio. A subsequent penalty order was also passed for non-compliance with the same notices.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was done after four years from the end of the assessment year, and the proviso to Section 147 was attracted. The assessee had disclosed material facts during the original assessment, and the AO's belief for reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of agricultural land should be considered as on the date of the agreement to sell dated 22/11/2012. This is because the agreement to sell creates a right in personae in favour of the vendee, restraining the vendor from selling the property to someone else, as the vendee gets the right to enforce specific performance. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in a similar context that a right in respect of the capital asset is transferred when the agreement to sell is executed. The Tribunal also noted that the sale consideration was received by way of post-dated cheques as per the agreement, and possession was handed over. The correction deed dated 15/02/2013 also referred to the prior agreement. Therefore, the assessee satisfied the conditions of acquiring new agricultural land against the sale of existing agricultural land, and the purchase of land for Rs. 2,47,60,900/- is eligible for deduction under Section 54B. The orders of the authorities below on this issue were set aside. The Tribunal did not specifically address the second ground regarding incorrect observations, but by allowing the appeal on the primary issue, it implicitly found merit in the assessee's contentions regarding the documents.

The Tribunal held that in a reassessment under section 153A following a search, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to a deduction for the provision of revised wages, as it was a liability arising from an award approved by the State Government. The disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to a deduction for the provision of revised wages, as it was a liability arising from an award approved by the State Government. The disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that TDS under Section 192 is attracted only upon actual payment of salary, not merely on accrual or booking of provisions. For ESOPs, the liability arises only when the option is exercised.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for not appearing and producing evidence due to being in police custody and his records being impounded. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for examination of the additional evidence.