ITAT Jaipur Judgments — March 2019

The Tribunal held that Section 56(1) is not applicable for taxing share premium. Furthermore, the amended provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 2(24)(xvi) for taxing share premium were not applicable for the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the liability for bonus payments, like wages, arose from the contractual relationship with security agencies and crystallized during the year. Since the payments were for business purposes and the liability had arisen and been settled within the year, they were allowable.

The Tribunal held that Section 56(1) is not applicable for taxing share premium. Furthermore, the amended provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 2(24)(xvi) for taxing share premium were not applicable for the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained unsecured loans and share application money were unsustainable in law. The Tribunal found that the AO relied solely on information from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, and statements recorded under Section 132(4) of various individuals, without providing the assessee with copies of such incriminating documents and statements. Crucially, the assessee was denied an opportunity to cross-examine these individuals, despite specifically requesting it and offering to bear the costs. This denial violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in C. Vasantlal & Co. and its own prior decisions in similar cases involving group concerns of Kota Dall Mill, emphasizing that assessments based on statements without an opportunity for cross-examination are not sustainable. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted. The CIT(A)'s order deleting these additions was confirmed. The Tribunal did not explicitly address grounds 7 and 8 concerning disallowances under Section 14A and retention charges, but the overall result indicates these were not pressed or were decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the TDS statement was due to reasonable cause, considering the accountant's illness and the complexities of the new e-filing system with frequent amendments. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 272A(2)(k) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based on assumptions and presumptions without any cogent material. The seized document was silent about the nature of transactions, and the department failed to prove that the amounts represented undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the onus by producing documents for agricultural land held by the HUF and his share of income. The cash book's rejection solely due to agricultural income not being shown in the return was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have granted one more opportunity of hearing, considering the reasonable cause for adjournment. The defect in e-filing was also to be rectified by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. However, it confirmed the levy of penalty at 10% on the undisclosed income surrendered by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, following its own earlier decision. It held that the amendment to Section 115JB, excluding the share of profit from an Association of Persons (AOP) on which no tax is payable, should be considered retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the non-filing of the audit report electronically would not disentitle the assessee to the deduction if the report was filed during the assessment proceedings. The AO's action of disallowing the claim solely on this ground was not justified.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's reasonable cause for non-appearance. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO within 60 days.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the lower authorities was not justified and was therefore deleted. The Tribunal found that the difference between the sale value adopted by the stamp duty authorities and the sale value taken by the assessee amounted to Rs. 5,11,472, which represented a difference of only 6.73%. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the comparability of a sale deed dated 24.02.2012, citing differences in floor location (7th floor vs. 2nd floor) and unspecified unit locations. However, the Tribunal reasoned that in modern buildings equipped with lifts, floor location does not significantly impact value, and properties on higher floors might even have better views and ventilation. The Tribunal also found that the unit numbers in the comparable sale deed (702 and 603) suggested similar locations to the assessee's unit (202). The Tribunal concluded that a marginal difference of 6.73% in sale value did not warrant an addition. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the lower authorities. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders. The lenders were corporate entities with substantial share capital and reserves, and their financial statements and bank accounts demonstrated the source of funds. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not find any incriminating material during search operations to suggest the loans were from undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders. The lenders were corporate entities with substantial share capital and reserves, and their financial statements and bank accounts demonstrated the source of funds. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not find any incriminating material during search operations to suggest the loans were from undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders. The lenders were corporate entities with substantial share capital and reserves, and their financial statements and bank accounts demonstrated the source of funds. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not find any incriminating material during search operations to suggest the loans were from undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that merely receiving funds through banking channels does not make a non-genuine transaction genuine. The assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of creditors and the genuineness of transactions, thus not satisfying the ingredients of Section 68.

The Tribunal held that merely receiving funds through banking channels does not make a non-genuine transaction genuine. The assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of creditors and the genuineness of transactions, thus not satisfying the ingredients of Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The circular directed that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lacs should not be filed or should be withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that client code modification within reasonable limits is a rectification and not misuse. It also modified the disallowance of expenses to 10%.

The Tribunal decided that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of the sale of house property was not justified. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that merely receiving funds through banking channels does not make a non-genuine transaction genuine. The assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of creditors and the genuineness of transactions, thus not satisfying the ingredients of Section 68.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, following its own earlier decision and the decisions of other benches. It held that the amendment to Section 115JB, which allows exclusion of share of profit from an AOP not liable to tax, is curative and retrospective.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) citing sufficient reasons and the substantial interest of justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that there was no material on record to suggest the assessee paid 'on-money'. The statement of the third party did not admit to receiving 'on-money' from the assessee, and the assessee had no privity of contract with the third party.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of a statement without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The CIT(A) also passed an ex parte order without considering the merits. Therefore, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary, requiring consideration of facts and merits. Following earlier decisions, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of a statement without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The CIT(A) also passed an ex parte order without considering the merits. Therefore, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that mere rejection of books of account does not automatically warrant a trading addition, especially when the assessee's gross profit rate is comparable or better than previous years. The Tribunal also directed deletion of ad-hoc disallowances of expenses made on the assumption of personal use.

The Tribunal held that there was no evidence to suggest the assessee paid 'on-money' and that the assessee had no direct transaction with the person whose statement formed the basis of the addition. The opportunity for cross-examination was also denied.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) due to a reasonable cause for non-appearance. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) citing sufficient reasons and the substantial interest of justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on estimated additions, as there can be no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in such cases. The imposition of penalty is not automatic and requires careful scrutiny of attendant circumstances.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) citing sufficient reasons and the substantial interest of justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on estimated additions, as there can be no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in such cases. The imposition of penalty is not automatic and requires careful scrutiny of attendant circumstances.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) citing sufficient reasons and the substantial interest of justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) citing sufficient reasons and the substantial interest of justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) citing sufficient reasons and the substantial interest of justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's bonafide ignorance and the principle that an assessee should not be penalized for the latches of their authorized representative. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was valid, but the addition of 'on-money' was not substantiated by any material on record. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence and the denial of the assessee's right to cross-examine the deponent.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of persons from whom cash was allegedly received for commodity trading and that the transactions were not properly documented. However, a portion of the deposit related to jewellery sale and transfer from another bank account was explained.

The tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB is not mandatory and depends on facts. The penalty on LTCG was deleted as it was not considered undisclosed income, but the penalty on cash found was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was valid, but the addition of 'on-money' was not substantiated by any material on record. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence and the denial of the assessee's right to cross-examine the deponent.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary, to be imposed on merits after considering the facts and circumstances. The Tribunal deleted the penalty levied under section 271AAB.