ITAT Jaipur Judgments — February 2019

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had the power to reject books of accounts under Section 145(3) and estimate profits based on past history. Once books are rejected and profits estimated, separate disallowances under other sections are not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the explanation for the Rs. 1,36,000/- deposit was corroborated by the daughter of the deceased creditor and the assessee's bank statement. For the Rs. 6,50,000/- deposit, the Tribunal found the explanation supported by an affidavit and an agreement to sell, discharging the assessee's initial burden.

The Tribunal held that the fair market value for Section 50C should be the average of the DVO's valuation and the registered valuer's valuation. Renovation expenses incurred after purchase and used for business were disallowed, while brokerage was allowed partially.

The Tribunal held that the fair market value for Section 50C should be the average of the DVO's valuation and the registered valuer's valuation. Renovation expenses incurred after purchase and used for business were disallowed, while brokerage was allowed partially.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim under the wrong section was a bona fide mistake, as all primary facts were disclosed and the property was used for residential purposes. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The Tribunal set aside the issue of gift creditworthiness to the AO for further examination of donors and directed the assessee to provide tax returns and fund flow for savings. Ad-hoc disallowances on freight, loading/unloading, office, petrol, refreshment, repair, maintenance, travelling, and mobile expenses were deleted. The addition on account of household expenses was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment based on a re-appreciation of material already considered during the original scrutiny assessment amounts to a 'change of opinion' and is therefore invalid. The AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on this basis.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment based on a re-appreciation of material already considered during the original scrutiny assessment amounts to a 'change of opinion' and is therefore invalid. The AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on this basis.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of provision for overdue interest was justified, following the co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. The Tribunal noted that the provision was not written off as a bad debt and its allowability depended on the Act's provisions.

The Tribunal found that the disallowances of production expenses, stock anami expenses, and car running & maintenance expenses were made on an ad-hoc basis without sufficient justification. Consequently, these additions were directed to be deleted.

The tribunal directed the AO to verify if the interest income was offered in the subsequent year to avoid double taxation. For the disallowed interest expenditure, the issue was set aside to the AO for verification of utilization of share application money for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that the brokerage receipt was contradictory and thus not admissible evidence. However, it allowed the indexation benefit from the date of purchase agreement and payment (15.03.1996) as ownership title is derived from the purchase documents.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperative conduct and delaying tactics before the CIT(A). However, taking a lenient view, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that mobilization advances are not income until work obligations are fulfilled and that Form 26AS is not determinative of taxability. It also noted that debit notes for past work deficiencies should be accepted if accounted for correctly.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonably explained the source of cash deposits, as the sale consideration of Rs. 2.55 crores was corroborated by the Collector (Stamps) and notarized agreement. The AO failed to provide evidence to disprove the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's cash book, explaining the source of peak debit, should not be rejected on technical grounds. Since the assessee had offered the total income for the relevant years, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's cash book, explaining the source of peak debit, should not be rejected on technical grounds. Since the assessee had offered the total income for the relevant years, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest receipts credited to capital work in progress should be reduced from construction period expenditure, following a High Court decision. It also allowed deduction for mine closure expenses as an ascertainable liability under Section 37(1), disagreeing with the AO and CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. Merely receiving loans through banking channels does not make a non-genuine transaction genuine. The CIT(A) was justified in confirming the additions under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that interest receipts credited to capital work in progress should be reduced from construction period expenditure, following a High Court decision. It also allowed deduction for mine closure expenses as an ascertainable liability under Section 37(1), disagreeing with the AO and CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that interest receipts credited to capital work in progress should be reduced from construction period expenditure, following a High Court decision. It also allowed deduction for mine closure expenses as an ascertainable liability under Section 37(1), disagreeing with the AO and CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that interest receipts credited to capital work in progress should be reduced from construction period expenditure, following a High Court decision. It also allowed deduction for mine closure expenses as an ascertainable liability under Section 37(1), disagreeing with the AO and CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. Merely receiving loans through banking channels does not make a non-genuine transaction genuine. The CIT(A) was justified in confirming the additions under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. Merely receiving loans through banking channels does not make a non-genuine transaction genuine. The CIT(A) was justified in confirming the additions under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts was justified due to the lack of proper record-keeping, including the stock register and consumption details. The estimated GP rate of 15% was considered reasonable as it was based on the preceding year's GP rate and the current year's declared GP rate.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate its claims for expenditure by not producing supporting documents or explanations. Therefore, the disallowances made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made under Section 68. The AO lacked sufficient material to substantiate the additions, and the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made under Section 68. The AO lacked sufficient material to substantiate the additions, and the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made under Section 68. The AO lacked sufficient material to substantiate the additions, and the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made under Section 68. The AO lacked sufficient material to substantiate the additions, and the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable where there was no incriminating material found during the search or statements from alleged entry operators. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted additions where the AO lacked material or cross-examination opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made under Section 68. The AO lacked sufficient material to substantiate the additions, and the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made under Section 68. The AO lacked sufficient material to substantiate the additions, and the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable where there was no incriminating material found during the search or statements from alleged entry operators. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted additions where the AO lacked material or cross-examination opportunities.

The Tribunal noted that the AO made additions based on statements from entry providers without sufficient corroborating material found during the search. The CIT(A) had deleted major additions but confirmed those where the AO possessed statements of alleged entry providers.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable where there was no incriminating material found during the search or statements from alleged entry operators. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted additions where the AO lacked material or cross-examination opportunities.

The Tribunal noted that the AO made additions based on statements from entry providers without sufficient corroborating material found during the search. The CIT(A) had deleted major additions but confirmed those where the AO possessed statements of alleged entry providers.

The Tribunal noted that the AO made additions based on statements from entry providers without sufficient corroborating material found during the search. The CIT(A) had deleted major additions but confirmed those where the AO possessed statements of alleged entry providers.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made under Section 68. The AO lacked sufficient material to substantiate the additions, and the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the word 'may' in Section 271AAB indicates discretion, not a mandatory imposition of penalty. It further found that the surrendered amounts did not qualify as 'undisclosed income' as defined in Section 271AAB, thus setting aside the penalty.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing a reasonable and bonafide cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing a reasonable and bonafide cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the sale deed's averments regarding the year and area of construction by the previous owner should be accepted. The valuation report was accepted subject to excluding the cost of construction for an area built prior to the previous owner's acquisition.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-appearance due to insolvency proceedings. It granted one more opportunity for the assessee to file the appeal electronically and present its case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the assessee failed to disclose the property sale and capital gains. However, the expenditure incurred for making the new house habitable and constructing an additional floor is eligible for deduction under Section 54F.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-appearance due to insolvency proceedings. It granted one more opportunity for the assessee to file the appeal electronically and present its case before the CIT(A).

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) did not specify the exact charge against the assessee, reflecting a non-application of mind by the AO. Following established legal precedents, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s restriction of opening cash balance to Rs. 1,00,000. However, it held that the source of cash deposit of Rs. 5,32,000 from the sale of handicraft items was satisfactorily explained, as purchases were not disputed and taxes on gains were paid.