ITAT Jaipur Judgments — March 2020

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that disallowances for employees were unjustified as the travel was for business purposes. However, expenses for a minor son's foreign travel were confirmed as not purely for business.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the AO failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening notice with a speaking order, as mandated by Supreme Court decisions. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that while income from core activities of the cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P, income from non-core activities like selling PDS items is not. In the absence of segment-wise details, the claim could not be verified.

The Tribunal held that while income from core activities of the cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P, income from non-core activities like selling commodities under the Public Distribution Scheme is not. Since segment-wise details were not provided, the issue was set aside to the AO.

The Tribunal found that the entire addition was not deleted, and a portion of the income remained taxable. Therefore, the penalty could not be entirely deleted. The matter was set aside to the AO for re-computation of the penalty consequent to the re-computation of income.

The Tribunal held that the AO rightly invoked Section 147 as the conditions for Section 153C were not met. The Tribunal also found that the alleged cancellation agreement was an afterthought and not supported by evidence, upholding the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the AO's belief was based on factually incorrect information and a lack of application of mind, as the assessee had indeed filed a return. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect. It clarified that information from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department does not fall under the exception for external law enforcement agencies.

The Tribunal held that the statement of Shri Nikhil Tripathi, director of M/s U-Turn Housing Pvt. Ltd., was not reliable evidence due to discrepancies and lack of corroboration. There was no material to prove that the assessee received unaccounted cash. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's assessment order indicated no business activity. The assessee admitted that depreciation claimed on the building was not allowable when rental income was offered as income from house property. The matter was remanded for fresh decision considering preceding assessment years' treatment of rental income.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below 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 held that the interest-free advances were brought forward from previous years and were covered by sufficient non-interest bearing funds (partner's capital). Following a previous decision for the AY 2013-14, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that information received from the DIT (Investigation) is not considered an external law enforcement agency as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal did not qualify for the exception to the monetary limit.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the AO's reasons were based on incorrect facts. The assessee had already disclosed the transaction and claimed the deduction in the original return, and the AO failed to consider this information.

The Tribunal held that since the entire demand relating to clandestine manufacture and clearance of finished goods was set aside by the CESTAT, the consequential additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable and liable to be deleted. The appeal was decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the entire demand relating to clandestine manufacture and clearance of finished goods was set aside by the CESTAT, the consequential additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable and liable to be deleted. The appeal was decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the education expenses incurred by the assessee were personal in nature and did not have a direct nexus with his business, especially as the business had not yet started when the course was pursued. Therefore, the disallowance was justified.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect. The exception cited by the Revenue regarding information from the Investigation Wing was not applicable as it is not considered an external law enforcement agency as per the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect. The exception cited by the Revenue regarding information from the Investigation Wing was not applicable as it is not an external law enforcement agency.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking section 263 as the AO had made inquiries, and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The Pr. CIT's order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO's rejection of books of account and subsequent additions were not based on sufficient material or expert opinion. The Tribunal found no basis for alleging suppression of production, especially when production and dispatches were monitored by the Mining Department.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A for interest expenses was partly sustained. The addition for the interest-free loan was deleted, and the issue of interest on refund was remanded for fresh examination.

The Tribunal upheld the addition on account of defective closing stock, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence of physical verification and justification for the valuation. The disallowance under Section 14A was also upheld, following the precedent from a previous assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A for interest expenses was partly sustained. The addition for the interest-free loan was deleted, and the issue of interest on refund was remanded for fresh examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 400 days, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000, due to the ex parte nature of the orders passed by the lower authorities. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had followed the spirit and intent of Section 54F by depositing the funds separately and rectifying a procedural mistake by transferring the amount to the Capital Gains Account Scheme. The deduction under Section 54F was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish that the goods were defective due to expiry. Therefore, the addition made by the AO purely on presumption was liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO should consider the revised return filed by the assessee. Regarding salary, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination. For house property, the rental income was to be considered based on the property actually let out. Hostel expenses addition sustained by CIT(A) was deleted, and a deduction under Section 80C was allowed after verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentary evidence proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The addition made by the AO solely on the basis of a third-party statement without providing an opportunity for cross-examination was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's action under Section 154 was beyond its scope as it involved re-appreciation of evidence and a debatable issue, not an apparent mistake. The Tribunal stated that if the AO believed the original order was erroneous, the proper remedy would have been to initiate proceedings under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that civil engineering works integral to the installation of solar power panels are part of the solar power plant and eligible for higher depreciation. It also held that interest earned on fixed deposits made for securing bank guarantees for the solar plant during the pre-operative period should reduce the cost of the plant.