Loading ITAT cases…
767 tribunal orders from the Jaipur bench in 2019.
Showing 40 of 767 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus to explain the source of deposits, as the affidavit from the wine shop owner was not sufficiently rebutted. The addition for commission income was reduced as per the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal held that deposits explained by agricultural income and sale of goods in a medical shop were not additions, but the deposit of Rs. 4,00,000/- without documentary evidence was sustained.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not considered the arrangement where the assessee took premises on rent and provided them to needy persons on a no-profit-no-loss basis. The Tribunal also noted that the predominant activities claimed by the assessee, such as eye camps and yoga classes, were not adequately examined.
The Tribunal held that the AO was uncertain about the specific default (concealment vs. inaccurate particulars) for which penalty was levied. This ambiguity, present from the satisfaction stage to the penalty order, rendered the penalty unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that an ad-hoc disallowance of expenses without specific findings of them being bogus or not incurred for business purposes is not sustainable. The lack of proper vouchers alone does not justify such a disallowance if the expenses are otherwise for business purposes.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) may have misinterpreted 'income' as 'receipts' and that the arrangement for hiring premises on a no-profit-no-loss basis needed fresh examination. The Tribunal also noted that the predominant activities claimed by the assessee were not clearly established in the CIT(E)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence regarding the scrap sale, especially since the AO had not filed a remand report. For the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal found that no disallowance was warranted for interest expenditure due to sufficient own funds, but sustained the disallowance for indirect administrative expenditure.
The Tribunal held that even if Section 45(2) was applied, there would be no change in the capital gains or business income as the fair market value on conversion would be deemed as sale consideration and also the cost of stock-in-trade. Therefore, the order of the AO was not prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that even if Section 45(2) was applied, there would be no change in the tax liability as the fair market value on conversion would be deemed the sale consideration, and this would also be the cost of stock-in-trade, resulting in nil business income. Therefore, the AO's order was not prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not raised objections regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue of jurisdiction could not be raised at the appellate stage without permission.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied on the purchaser's admission during remand proceedings. However, the revenue argued this was a device to cover undisclosed income, as the purchaser's income was exempt under Section 10(26AAA). The Tribunal noted the AO had given numerous opportunities to the assessee, who remained absent.
The Tribunal held that while the identity of the payee and genuineness of the transaction were not disputed, the assessee failed to provide a reasonable explanation for making cash payments, especially in a related party transaction. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was upheld in one case.
The Tribunal held that while the identity of the payee and genuineness of the transaction were not disputed, the assessee failed to provide a reasonable explanation for making cash payments, especially in a related party transaction. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was upheld in one case.
The Tribunal held that while the identity of the payee and genuineness of the transaction were not disputed, the assessee failed to provide a reasonable explanation for making cash payments, especially in a related party transaction. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was upheld in one case.
The Tribunal held that if the bank account was operated by the son for share trading, then transactions carried out through it cannot be attributed to the assessee. The Tribunal also stated that failure of the AO to assess income in the son's hands cannot be a ground for assessing it in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal held that the subsidy received by the assessee was for specific assets and thus should be reduced from the actual cost of the assets for depreciation calculation under Section 43(1). However, it allowed depreciation at the higher rate of 80% (half rate due to less than 180 days usage) on all components of the wind power project except land.
The Tribunal held that the subsidy received by the assessee was for specific assets and thus should be reduced from the actual cost of the assets for depreciation calculation under Section 43(1). However, it allowed depreciation at the higher rate of 80% (half rate due to less than 180 days usage) on all components of the wind power project except land.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had requested certain details and documentation to verify the genuineness of the assessee society. The assessee's contention was that these details were submitted via email and had not been considered by the CIT(E). In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to consider the submitted details and decide the matter afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issue of whether the assessee was entitled to approval under Section 10(23C)(vi), but rather remanded the case for proper consideration of the evidence.
The Tribunal held that the subsidy received by the assessee was for specific assets and thus should be reduced from the actual cost of the assets for depreciation calculation under Section 43(1). However, it allowed depreciation at the higher rate of 80% (half rate due to less than 180 days usage) on all components of the wind power project except land.
The Tribunal held that the subsidy received by the assessee was for specific assets and thus should be reduced from the actual cost of the assets for depreciation calculation under Section 43(1). However, it allowed depreciation at the higher rate of 80% (half rate due to less than 180 days usage) on all components of the wind power project except land.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal did not exceed the revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT had subsequently granted registration with retrospective effect from the date of application. Therefore, the assessee's appeal became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the AO's conversion of the case from limited to complete scrutiny was invalid as it was done without proper prior approval and without intimating the assessee, violating CBDT instructions. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the miscellaneous applications were filed within the limitation period and the assessee had shown a reasonable cause for non-appearance. Therefore, the earlier orders were recalled.
The Tribunal held that the claim for exemption on agricultural land, when debatable and based on primary facts, does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following a coordinate bench decision, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the grants given by the assessee to district cricket associations for infrastructure and equipment were a proper application of income for charitable purposes. The expenditure was not capital in nature for the assessee and directly linked to promoting cricket.
The Tribunal held that the grants given by the assessee to district cricket associations for infrastructure and equipment were a proper application of income for charitable purposes. The expenditure was not capital in nature for the assessee and directly linked to promoting cricket.
The Tribunal found that the miscellaneous applications were filed within the limitation period and the assessee had shown a reasonable cause for non-appearance. Therefore, the earlier orders were recalled.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to satisfy the basic requirements for assuming jurisdiction under Section 147. The reasons recorded were vague, lacked specific linkage to the assessee, and indicated a borrowed satisfaction rather than the AO's own belief.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is applicable only when exempt income is actually earned, not when it is merely includable or potentially earned in the future. Therefore, no disallowance can be made if no exempt income has been earned during the year.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the extent of the exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonably explained the source of capital introduction as withdrawals from her capital account in the preceding financial year, which were available at the beginning of the current year. The AO's addition was based on suspicion and conjecture.
The Tribunal held that reopening assessments after 4 years, when the original assessment was under Section 143(3), is invalid if the AO fails to allege the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the approval for reopening.
The Tribunal held that reopening assessments after 4 years, when the original assessment was under Section 143(3), is invalid if the AO fails to allege the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the approval for reopening.
The Tribunal held that reopening assessments after 4 years, when the original assessment was under Section 143(3), is invalid if the AO fails to allege the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the approval for reopening.
The Tribunal held that reopening assessments after 4 years, when the original assessment was under Section 143(3), is invalid if the AO fails to allege the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the approval for reopening.
The Tribunal held that reopening assessments after 4 years, when the original assessment was under Section 143(3), is invalid if the AO fails to allege the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the approval for reopening.
The Tribunal held that reopening assessments after 4 years, when the original assessment was under Section 143(3), is invalid if the AO fails to allege the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the approval for reopening.