ITAT Jaipur Judgments — November 2018

The Tribunal held that the entire expenditure of Rs. 60,00,000/- incurred for vacating the land is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1). The CIT(A)'s restriction on the quantum was deemed incorrect, and the decision was consistent with the prior year's treatment.

The Tribunal held that the entire expenditure of Rs. 60,00,000/- incurred for vacating the land is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1). The CIT(A)'s restriction on the quantum was deemed incorrect, and the decision was consistent with the prior year's treatment.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which empowered the AO to levy fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements, was prospective. Therefore, the AO could not levy the fee for a period prior to the amendment.

The Tribunal addressed the grounds of appeal. For Ground No. 2 (Section 50C valuation), the Tribunal noted that while the sale deed showed Rs. 75,00,000/-, the Sub-Registrar's letter indicated Rs. 92,80,201/-. However, the communication also referred to a notice under Section 54 of the Stamp Act, suggesting the higher value was not finalized. Neither party provided adequate material regarding the finalization of this higher value or any appeals. The Tribunal observed that Section 155(15) of the Act provides for amendment if the stamp duty value is revised later. Due to lack of adequate material, the Tribunal could not definitively rule on the issue but noted the statutory provision for future adjustments. For Ground No. 3 (cost of acquisition), the Tribunal found deficiencies in the assessee's valuation report, which used commercial land rates for a residential property and lacked data. The AO's approach of taking the actual purchase deed value of Rs. 38,500/- from 1980 and applying a 10% annual appreciation was considered sound. Thus, Ground No. 3 was dismissed. For Ground No. 4 (salary income), the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that a wrong salary certificate was submitted due to a clerical error by the accountant. The AO was directed to verify the correct salary certificates with the return of income and allow relief if found in order. The appeal was partly allowed with these directions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeals. The appeals were therefore set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without providing the assessee an effective opportunity to explain the delay in filing. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeals. The appeals were therefore set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with an effective opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee regarding the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the failure of the AR to attend proceedings without informing the assessee constituted a reasonable cause. Therefore, the assessee deserved another opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the failure of the AR to attend proceedings without informing the assessee constituted a reasonable cause. Therefore, the assessee deserved another opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 is not automatic due to violations of Section 13, but only to the extent of excess payments or benefits to specified persons. It also held that development fees collected by the assessee are capital in nature and not revenue, deleting the related addition.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee outsourced operational and maintenance activities, strategic and managerial oversight expenses incurred by the corporate office had a nexus with the eligible undertakings. The matter was remanded to the AO to verify and recalculate eligible profits under Section 80IA after excluding specific non-allocable expenses.