ITAT Jaipur Judgments — July 2020

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on funds borrowed for road construction prior to commercial operations should be capitalized. Regarding share issue expenses, the Tribunal found that Section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was applicable for amortizing such expenses over five years.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, is not covered under Section 36(1)(viia) and thus not entitled to the deduction for Principal NPA. For Time Barred Interest, the matter was remanded to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on funds borrowed for road construction prior to commercial operations should be capitalized. Regarding share issue expenses, the Tribunal found that Section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was applicable for amortizing such expenses over five years.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on funds borrowed for road construction prior to commercial operations should be capitalized. Regarding share issue expenses, the Tribunal found that Section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was applicable for amortizing such expenses over five years.

The Tribunal held that the lands in question were indeed stock-in-trade, not capital assets, and therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act were not applicable. The assessee had consistently shown these plots of land as part of its closing stock in its books of account, which were available to the AO. The Tribunal noted that the absence of development expenditure in the year of purchase does not preclude an asset from being classified as stock-in-trade. The argument regarding the nature of the asset was considered a legal ground that the CIT(A) had the power to examine. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT. Consequently, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld. The Tribunal also addressed a cross-objection concerning the disallowance of interest expenses, holding that since the assessee had substantial interest-free funds (unsecured loans from Karta and members) exceeding the advances made, the disallowance of interest was not justified, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd.

The assessee has opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2020' to settle the matter. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the tax paid on the voluntarily declared income in an invalid return is not refundable, even if the assessment proceedings were quashed. The refund is limited to tax due to additions made by the AO.

The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2020' to settle their tax liability. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was in view of the assessee opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2020' to settle their tax liability.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as it was done after four years from the end of the assessment year without fulfilling the conditions of the proviso to Section 147. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2020'. Therefore, the appeal was considered infructuous and dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw their appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2020' to settle their tax liability.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee, considering her stated health issues and the interest of justice.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking order and had dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision after granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were not vitiated because although the show cause notice mentioned both concealment and inaccurate particulars, the AO specifically levied the penalty for concealment of income, making the charge definite at the time of levy.

The Tribunal held that entries in seized documents representing payments for land, without particulars of the land and persons, do not constitute undisclosed income as defined in Section 271AAB. Therefore, the penalty levied is not sustainable.

The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the matter was not decided on merits by the CIT(A), it was appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee for a fresh decision.

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

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings were initiated for the entire undisclosed income of Rs. 6,00,000/- and not just the Rs. 80,000/- addition. The conditions for a lower penalty rate under Section 271AAB(1)(a) were not met.

The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application but, noting the matter was not decided on merits, remanded it back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee no longer had any grievance as the relief was already provided. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) was not justified as the evaporation shortages claimed were lower than in previous years and comparable. Consequently, the consequent trading addition was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause due to the assessee's absence from India. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted as the service of notice was doubtful and the assessee had no knowledge of the proceedings.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the issue of rejection of books of account and other disallowances in light of the assessee's objections. Therefore, the matter required re-adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case and for a fresh decision by a speaking order.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order, remitting the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing and a speaking order. The Tribunal also noted that opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme would not adversely impact the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act. Regarding the investment in the wife's name, the Tribunal relied on the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Shri Mahadev Balai vs. ITO and the Coordinate Bench's decision in Shri Vivek Jain vs. DCIT, which held that investment in a spouse's name does not disentitle the assessee to the deduction under Section 54. The Tribunal also noted that the cost of construction was supported by a valuation report. Therefore, the mere fact that the investment was in the wife's name is not a reason for disallowance. The deduction under Section 54 was directed to be allowed. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was directed to be deleted as it was consequential to the allowance of the Section 54 deduction. However, for the penalty under Section 271F, the Tribunal found that the assessee's total income, computed without giving effect to Section 54, amounted to Rs. 9,37,280, which exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. As the assessee failed to show any reasonable cause for not filing the return of income as required under Section 139(1), the penalty under Section 271F was confirmed. The Tribunal left no issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the AO must be certain about the specific charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars) at the time of passing the penalty order, even if the initiation was uncertain. If the AO provides a definite finding in the penalty order, the penalty is not illegal.

The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application but remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee, allowing them to pursue the settlement scheme if they choose.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an effective and proper opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after granting one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's absence from India and lack of proper notice. The ex-parte assessment and penalty orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also noted that the mistake in capital gain computation was an inadvertent human error.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act. Regarding the investment in the wife's name, the Tribunal relied on the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Shri Mahadev Balai vs. ITO and the Coordinate Bench's decision in Shri Vivek Jain vs. DCIT, which held that investment in a spouse's name does not disentitle the assessee to the deduction under Section 54. The Tribunal also noted that the cost of construction was supported by a valuation report. Therefore, the mere fact that the investment was in the wife's name is not a reason for disallowance. The deduction under Section 54 was directed to be allowed. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was directed to be deleted as it was consequential to the allowance of the Section 54 deduction. However, for the penalty under Section 271F, the Tribunal found that the assessee's total income, computed without giving effect to Section 54, amounted to Rs. 9,37,280, which exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. As the assessee failed to show any reasonable cause for not filing the return of income as required under Section 139(1), the penalty under Section 271F was confirmed. The Tribunal left no issue undecided.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's absence from India and lack of proper notice. The ex-parte assessment and penalty orders were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's absence from India and lack of proper notice. The ex-parte assessment and penalty orders were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's absence from India and lack of proper notice. The ex-parte assessment and penalty orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act. Regarding the investment in the wife's name, the Tribunal relied on the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Shri Mahadev Balai vs. ITO and the Coordinate Bench's decision in Shri Vivek Jain vs. DCIT, which held that investment in a spouse's name does not disentitle the assessee to the deduction under Section 54. The Tribunal also noted that the cost of construction was supported by a valuation report. Therefore, the mere fact that the investment was in the wife's name is not a reason for disallowance. The deduction under Section 54 was directed to be allowed. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was directed to be deleted as it was consequential to the allowance of the Section 54 deduction. However, for the penalty under Section 271F, the Tribunal found that the assessee's total income, computed without giving effect to Section 54, amounted to Rs. 9,37,280, which exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. As the assessee failed to show any reasonable cause for not filing the return of income as required under Section 139(1), the penalty under Section 271F was confirmed. The Tribunal left no issue undecided.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2020' to settle their tax liability.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding a reasonable cause due to the assessee's change of address and the dispatch of notices to an old address. The matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding a reasonable cause due to the assessee's change of address and the dispatch of notices to an old address. The matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal found that the outcome of the quantum appeal, which challenged the service of notice under Section 148, could impact the penalty proceedings. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the quantum appeal's outcome.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding a reasonable cause for the delay due to the assessee's change of address and the dispatch of notices to an old address. The matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application but, noting the matter was not decided on merits, remanded it to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. This allows the assessee to pursue the settlement scheme or present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding a reasonable cause due to the assessee's change of address and the dispatch of notices to an old address. The matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.