ITAT Jaipur Judgments — August 2019

The Tribunal held that the department's appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, both the appeal and the cross-objection were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's explanation of non-receipt of notices. The ex-parte assessment order and consequential penalty orders were set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's explanation of non-receipt of notices. The ex-parte assessment order and consequential penalty orders were set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied by producing all required documents and that no adverse findings were recorded regarding documentation. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for filing appeals by the department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that the matter was not decided on merits and that the assessee deserved another opportunity. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for filing appeals by the department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments with another co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal found that the Ajmer Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. is a co-operative society, and therefore, the deduction cannot be denied.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals by the department as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

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 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 held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit should be dismissed. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals by the department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

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 held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit should be dismissed. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the cash payment for the villa, being an investment recorded in a document, does not fall under the definition of 'undisclosed income' for penalty under Section 271AAB. However, the cash found without any explanation of its source was considered undisclosed income.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. This was based on the CBDT circular which sets monetary limits for filing appeals.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had not adequately examined the reasonableness of rent paid to related parties and the overall financial structure of the hostel operations. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause from appearing before the AO and that crucial documents for exemption claims needed examination. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals by the department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals by the department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the entries in the diary, representing advances for land purchase, did not constitute 'undisclosed income' as defined under Section 271AAB. Since the assessee was not required to maintain regular books of accounts and the entries were in a document maintained in the normal course, the penalty was not leviable.

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 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 held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed the revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the department. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals by the Department before the ITAT, as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals by the Department, as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect did not exceed the revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect did not exceed the revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect did not exceed the revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the department were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- set by the CBDT.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the department were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- prescribed by the CBDT.

The Tribunal allowed the full claim of deduction under Section 54F. It held that non-deposit of the entire sale consideration in the Capital Gain Account is not a reason for disallowance if the investment in a new residential house is made within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals by the department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect did not exceed the revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals by the Department, as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.

The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- set by the CBDT.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals by the department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition as no incriminating material was found during the search to substantiate the undisclosed income. The forfeited advance should be adjusted against the cost of acquisition of the property.

The tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence for lower interest income received, making the addition by the AO correct. However, ESI/EPF contributions deposited before the due date were allowed as per jurisdictional High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to teachers/lecturers/staff were covered under Section 192 as there was a clear employer-employee relationship. The AO's action of treating these payments as professional services under Section 194J was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal also noted a variation between the notice and the penalty order.

The Tribunal found that additional evidence was produced for the first time, which was crucial to the issue. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after considering this new evidence.

The Tribunal held that for one entity, Badhir Bal Kalyan Vikash Samiti, the AO had correctly charged interest only from the date of payment to the date of furnishing the return, as the Samiti had declared the income. For the other two entities, no specific contentions were raised, and it was not shown that they had declared the interest income and paid taxes, thus confirming the demand.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were deleted by the co-ordinate bench, there was no justification for levying the penalty. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was therefore confirmed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity of hearing as notice was not served. Therefore, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have maintained books of accounts which could be produced. Since no basis was provided for the estimated NP rates by the AO or CIT(A), the matter was set aside to the AO for verification of the books of accounts.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 applies to unexplained credits in the assessee's own books of account, not those of a third party. Since the credit was in the mother's bank account and the mother had expired, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals by the department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals by the department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.