ITAT Jaipur Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 20%, following a previous order in a group concern's case with similar facts. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's ground regarding the addition for assumed commission on sales.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 20%, following a previous order in a group concern's case with similar facts. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's ground regarding the addition for assumed commission on sales.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 20%, following a previous order in a group concern's case with similar facts. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's ground regarding the addition for assumed commission on sales.

The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of Rs. 1,50,000/- should be considered when assessing unexplained deposits. It also found the assessee's claim of Rs. 3,00,000/- as reasonable savings from her long-standing beauty parlor business. For the cost of improvement, the Tribunal allowed a sum on an estimated basis due to lack of conclusive evidence and proper inquiry.

The Tribunal held that gifts received from various persons amounting to Rs. 31,000/- and a loan of Rs. 15,000/- from the wife were sufficiently proved. However, the claim for opening cash balance was not supported by verifiable evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been given a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal restored the penalty to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh decision. This was done because the quantum appeal concerning the same addition had also been restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the AO had tangible material to believe that income assessable to tax had escaped assessment, justifying the reopening of the assessment. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's non-appearance and failure to remove defects in the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 50C is retrospective and remedial/clarificatory in nature. Therefore, the stamp duty valuation as on the date of the agreement to sell, when part consideration was received through banking channels, should be taken as the full value of consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have made further attempts to serve notice before dismissing the appeal ex parte. Since all other orders were served at the same address, there was no merit in the observation that the address was incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the ex parte order was passed without giving the assessee a due opportunity of hearing. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The ITAT found that there was a sufficient reason for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the addition made by the AO as the assessee failed to explain the source of the cash deposit. Since the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal either, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the payment to the husband was for resolving disputes, including the cost of construction. However, if the assessee had already claimed the indexed cost of construction, allowing this payment would lead to double deduction. The issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer to verify this aspect.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to correlate interest-free advances to related parties with available interest-free funds. However, to provide a fair opportunity, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the property sold was primarily commercial, as the plots were allotted for shops and the additional construction on mezzanine and first floors lacked independent access and was part of the shops. Therefore, the deduction under Section 54 was not allowable.

The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by its own previous decisions and the Rajasthan High Court's order. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was correctly deleted by the CIT(A).

The CIT(A) quashed the AO's order, holding it to be barred by limitation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior rulings that a reasonable period of four years should be applied for passing orders under Section 206C(6)/206C(7).

The CIT(A) quashed the AO's order, holding it to be barred by limitation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior rulings that a reasonable period of four years should be applied for passing orders under Section 206C(6)/206C(7).

The CIT(A) quashed the AO's order, holding it to be barred by limitation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior rulings that a reasonable period of four years should be applied for passing orders under Section 206C(6)/206C(7).

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts during the original assessment. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted as the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year.

The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 in the name of a deceased person is invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order passed under Section 147 based on such a notice is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and satisfied the conditions for genuineness and creditworthiness for loans from Shri Jagdish Kumar and Smt. Rajni. For the loan from Smt. Neeta Agarwal, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for the income related to its banking business, even though the claim was not originally made in the return. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) was justified in cancelling the registration under Section 12AA. The clinical trial activities were found to be primarily for the commercial benefit of the sponsoring MNCs and not for philanthropic purposes, and the trust's other charitable activities were negligible.

The Tribunal decided that the addition of Rs. 4,47,150/- on account of the difference between the DLC value and the sale consideration was not justified. The assessee's appeal was allowed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have ensured proper service of notice, possibly through an I.T. Inspector, before passing an ex parte order. The ex parte order was set aside as it was passed without considering the merits of the additions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) was justified in cancelling the registration under Section 12AA. The clinical trial activities were found to be primarily for the commercial benefit of the sponsoring MNCs and not for philanthropic purposes, and the trust's other charitable activities were negligible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the failure to deduct TDS due to a bonafide belief that the accommodation was not a taxable perquisite. The penalty under Section 271C was therefore cancelled.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance on expenses, finding it to be ad-hoc and lacking specific defects. The disallowance of ESI & PF deposits was also deleted, relying on jurisdictional High Court decisions and the dismissal of a related SLP by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the failure to deduct TDS due to a bonafide belief that the accommodation was not a taxable perquisite. The penalty under Section 271C was therefore cancelled.

The Tribunal held that merely matching cash withdrawals and deposits is insufficient; the genuineness of the transaction must be demonstrated. Since the cash borrowing theory was not supported by evidence, the amount was treated as undisclosed business receipts.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lender were established through various documents and banking channels. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee discharged the onus under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of carry forward of losses was unjustified, as the losses were duly claimed in the original returns filed under Section 139(1) and also in the computation of income filed under Section 153A. The omission in the acknowledgement was due to a technical/software error.

The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order by directing the AO to apply a net profit rate of 5% instead of 4.6%, subject to adjustment for interest paid to banks. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat interest on FDR as business income, following previous rulings.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of carry forward of losses was unjustified, as the losses were duly claimed in the original returns filed under Section 139(1) and also in the computation of income filed under Section 153A. The omission in the acknowledgement was due to a technical/software error.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of carry forward of losses was unjustified, as the losses were duly claimed in the original returns filed under Section 139(1) and also in the computation of income filed under Section 153A. The omission in the acknowledgement was due to a technical/software error.

The Tribunal, following its own precedent for a prior assessment year with similar facts, directed the AO to restrict the addition by estimating the GP rate at 10.28% instead of the assessee's declared rate.

The Tribunal found that the AO made ad hoc disallowances without pointing out specific defects. It directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the total expenses in question, considering the nature of the business and the evidence produced.

The Tribunal held that the DVO's reliance solely on DLC rates for valuation was inappropriate, especially given the property's potential for group housing. The DVO should have considered other valuation methods, such as the development method, as outlined in departmental guidelines, and made adjustments for factors like the IOC pipeline passing through the land. The Tribunal found that the DVO did not adequately exercise its professional expertise. The CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's objections to the DVO's report on merits, stating that the DVO's report, while binding on the AO, is not binding on appellate authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO to obtain a fresh report from the DVO, considering the Tribunal's observations and providing the assessee an opportunity to present her case. The issues related to deductions under Sections 54F and 54B were also set aside to the AO for fresh consideration in light of the revised valuation.

The Tribunal held that the addition for the Hong Kong bank deposit was not sustainable as the amount was already offered to tax by the partnership firms before the Settlement Commission. The addition for credit card expenditure was also deleted as the source of payment by the assessee's uncle was established and not disputed by the AO.

The Tribunal rectified the apparent typographical mistakes in the previous order. The date of filing of the return of income pursuant to a notice under Section 153C was corrected, and the due date for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) was also amended.

The Tribunal, following its own prior order for an earlier assessment year, directed the AO to allow commission at 2% of the sales made through the specified individuals.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for the CPRI payment, stating no TDS was required if the income was exempt in the recipient's hands, and remanded the issue for verification. For interest payments, it held that obtaining Form 15G was sufficient to avoid disallowance, but remanded for verification of the declarations. The addition for the 26AS difference was also set aside for verification from the payers.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the share transactions, including purchase through banking channels, dematerialization, and sale on the stock exchange. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that for AY 1993-94 and 1995-96, reopening was justified as the assessee failed to disclose material facts. For AY 1994-95, reopening was not hit by the proviso to Section 147 and was based on tangible material and independent satisfaction, not borrowed satisfaction.

The Tribunal held that for AY 1993-94 and 1995-96, reopening was justified as the assessee failed to disclose material facts. For AY 1994-95, reopening was not hit by the proviso to Section 147 and was based on tangible material and independent satisfaction, not borrowed satisfaction.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal noted a variation between the show cause notice and the penalty order.

The Tribunal held that for AY 1993-94 and 1995-96, reopening was justified as the assessee failed to disclose material facts. For AY 1994-95, reopening was not hit by the proviso to Section 147 and was based on tangible material and independent satisfaction, not borrowed satisfaction.