ITAT Jaipur Judgments — January 2019

The Tribunal held that the valuation of the excess stock should be based on the cost recorded in the assessee's books, not the market value determined by the departmental valuer. The addition was confirmed only to the extent of the cost of the excess stock found.

The Tribunal held that the AO's belief for reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind or tangible material. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had discharged its initial onus regarding the share transactions and the addition could not be sustained.

The Tribunal noted that for assessment years where the assessment was not pending on the date of search, the addition under Section 153A requires incriminating material. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's plea regarding the denial of cross-examination. The decision on the merits of the additions varied based on the evidence presented.

The Tribunal noted that for assessment years where the assessment was not pending on the date of search, the addition under Section 153A requires incriminating material. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's plea regarding the denial of cross-examination. The decision on the merits of the additions varied based on the evidence presented.

The Tribunal held that while additions under Section 68 could be made due to failure to establish creditworthiness, it does not automatically imply concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was therefore not justified.

The Tribunal noted that for assessment years where the assessment was not pending on the date of search, the addition under Section 153A requires incriminating material. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's plea regarding the denial of cross-examination. The decision on the merits of the additions varied based on the evidence presented.

The Tribunal noted that for assessment years where the assessment was not pending on the date of search, the addition under Section 153A requires incriminating material. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's plea regarding the denial of cross-examination. The decision on the merits of the additions varied based on the evidence presented.

The Tribunal noted that for assessment years where the assessment was not pending on the date of search, the addition under Section 153A requires incriminating material. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's plea regarding the denial of cross-examination. The decision on the merits of the additions varied based on the evidence presented.

The Tribunal noted that for assessment years where the assessment was not pending on the date of search, the addition under Section 153A requires incriminating material. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's plea regarding the denial of cross-examination. The decision on the merits of the additions varied based on the evidence presented.

The Tribunal noted that for assessment years where the assessment was not pending on the date of search, the addition under Section 153A requires incriminating material. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's plea regarding the denial of cross-examination. The decision on the merits of the additions varied based on the evidence presented.

The Tribunal noted that for assessment years where the assessment was not pending on the date of search, the addition under Section 153A requires incriminating material. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's plea regarding the denial of cross-examination. The decision on the merits of the additions varied based on the evidence presented.

The Tribunal noted that for assessment years where the assessment was not pending on the date of search, the addition under Section 153A requires incriminating material. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's plea regarding the denial of cross-examination. The decision on the merits of the additions varied based on the evidence presented.

The Tribunal held that merely because an amount appears in Form 26AS does not automatically make it income of the assessee, especially if it was not reflected at the time of filing the return and the assessee provides a plausible explanation. The addition of Rs. 60,000/- was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals did not exceed the limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The issue of Section 14A disallowance deleted by CIT(A) did not fall under the exceptions of the circular.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals did not exceed the limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The issue of Section 14A disallowance deleted by CIT(A) did not fall under the exceptions of the circular.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision on the claims for deduction of housing loan interest and principal repayment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 344 days, finding that the assessee had made out a case of reasonable cause for the delay. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that there was no conscious intention to conceal income as the interest was offered to tax as soon as the bifurcation was available in the succeeding year. Therefore, it was not a fit case for penalty.

The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeals without an opportunity to rectify the e-filing defect violated the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that procedural rules should advance justice and that technicalities should not overshadow substantial justice.

The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeals without an opportunity to rectify the e-filing defect violated the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that procedural rules should advance justice and that technicalities should not overshadow substantial justice.

The Tribunal held that while the AO has jurisdiction to levy fees under Section 234E for defaults occurring after June 1, 2015, the levy can only be for the period of delay from June 1, 2015, to the actual date of filing. The fee for the delay prior to June 1, 2015, was deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions made based on third-party statements during a survey, which are not part of the assessee's regularly maintained books of account, cannot be considered for determining turnover under Section 44AB for the purpose of levying penalty.

The Tribunal held that while the AO acquired jurisdiction to levy fees under Section 234E from June 1, 2015, the penalty can only be levied for the period of delay after June 1, 2015, up to the date of actual filing. Therefore, the levy of fees for the delay prior to June 1, 2015, was deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the AO has jurisdiction to levy fees under Section 234E for returns filed after June 1, 2015, the levy should only be for the period of delay after June 1, 2015, as the provisions for levying such fees were prospective. Therefore, the late fee was upheld only for the period from June 1, 2015, to the actual filing date.

The Tribunal held that the basis for initiating reassessment (F&O transactions) did not survive as no income was brought to tax on that ground. Therefore, the addition of unexplained investment under Section 69 was beyond the AO's jurisdiction in reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits. In the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that if the recipient NBFC has included the interest income in its return and paid tax, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted. For one NBFC, a certificate was provided, and the issue was remanded for verification. For the other NBFC, no such proof was submitted.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits. While acknowledging the assessee's negligence, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the AO for a fresh decision after giving an opportunity of hearing, subject to a cost.

The Tribunal held that the exchange gain or loss should be considered as part of the sale proceeds when computing the arm's length price. The adjustment for credit allowed to the AE beyond the normal period should be made as part of the main international transaction, not as a separate one.

The Tribunal set aside the issues related to transfer pricing adjustments and notional interest on outstanding receivables to the AO/TPO for re-computation. The Tribunal found that exchange gains or losses should be part of the sale price and notional interest should be adjusted within the main sale transaction.

The Tribunal held that service of notice under Section 148 is a jurisdictional requirement and not a procedural one. Since the notice was returned unserved and no further steps were taken by the AO for proper service, the reassessment proceedings were void ab-initio.

The Tribunal set aside the issues related to transfer pricing adjustments and notional interest on outstanding receivables to the AO/TPO for re-computation. The Tribunal found that exchange gains or losses should be part of the sale price and notional interest should be adjusted within the main sale transaction.

The Tribunal set aside the issues related to transfer pricing adjustments and notional interest on outstanding receivables to the AO/TPO for re-computation. The Tribunal found that exchange gains or losses should be part of the sale price and notional interest should be adjusted within the main sale transaction.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's admission of receiving 'on money' and the lack of retraction. However, it found that the CIT(A) had not fully examined the booking of expenses related to the project. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a detailed examination of receipts and expenses.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB is based on the existence of undisclosed income found during a search. However, cash advances noted in a diary, even if surrendered, do not qualify as 'undisclosed income' as defined in Section 271AAB, as they represent an outflow of funds, not an inflow. Similarly, other surrenders without specific findings of undisclosed income also cannot form the basis for penalty.

The Tribunal held that the addition could not be made in the hands of the assessee based solely on the seized noting. It noted that the person who wrote the noting was not examined, the statement of the person vouching for it was not produced, and the sellers of the land were not examined.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) and set aside the ex parte order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after granting one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without providing an effective opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after granting one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following established precedents, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the opening cash balance, reflected in the assessee's books of account from previous years, could not be disallowed without reopening the assessment of the earlier year. It also found that the gifts received from her parents, who were regularly assessed to tax, were genuine and adequately supported by gift deeds.

The Tribunal held that since the entire salary income was subjected to TDS and no tax was evaded, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. Merely not filing a return when there is no tax liability does not attract this penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without providing an effective opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after granting one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that while cash deposits were made, the assessee had produced loan creditors' income tax returns and cash flow statements. However, the loan creditors failed to appear before the AO despite summons. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for further examination, with the condition that the addition would stand if the creditors were not produced.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions as the AO relied solely on information from the Investigation Wing without sufficient independent material. The assessee had provided documentary evidence, and the investor companies were not proven to be shell entities.

The Tribunal held that the forfeiture of advance is a business loss incurred during the course of the assessee's real estate business. The seller had duly accounted for the forfeiture, which would reduce the cost of acquisition for capital gains purposes, thus safeguarding revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions as the AO relied solely on information from the Investigation Wing without sufficient independent material. The assessee had provided documentary evidence, and the investor companies were not proven to be shell entities.

The Tribunal held that cash found during the search qualifies as undisclosed income for penalty under Section 271AAB. However, advances for land purchases and other discrepancies do not qualify as undisclosed income as per the specific definition in Section 271AAB, and thus penalty on these items is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was the de-facto owner of the plots as they divided the plots, received sale consideration in their name, and retained the funds. The claim of acting as a power of attorney holder was found to be contrary to these facts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted in good faith based on the bank's representation and that substantial compliance with the spirit of Section 54F was met, even if the account was not technically a designated Capital Gain Scheme Account. The denial of exemption was considered contrary to law.