ITAT Jaipur Judgments — January 2021

The Tribunal held that the commencement of activities is not a prerequisite for granting registration under Section 12AA. It further ruled that sponsorship for events or donations, even with TDS deduction, does not automatically convert a receipt into a commercial one, provided the amounts are treated as donations. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed him to grant registration.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not raise any objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The revenue did not raise any objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Act can only be invoked if a sum is found credited in the assessee's 'books' of account. A bank statement or passbook is not considered a 'book' maintained by the assessee for the purpose of Section 68. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 based on bank deposits was invalid.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The revenue's representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and their writ petition was allowed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements and a gift declaration from his mother, to prove the genuineness of the cash deposits. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54F.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the matter.

The Tribunal found that the source of the cash was duly explained through the return of income, statement of affairs, cash flow statement for the previous year, and the cash book for the current year. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the amendment to Section 200A allowing the levy of fees under Section 234E was prospective from June 1, 2015, the levy is applicable if the default continues beyond this date. In this case, since the TDS statement was filed and processed after June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to levy the fee for the period of delay after June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under section 153A was illegal as no incriminating material was found during the search, and the assessment was already concluded. Consequently, the penalty levied on such an illegal addition is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT could not revise the AO's order on an issue that was already considered and decided by the CIT(A). This is due to the doctrine of merger, where the appellate order supersedes the lower authority's order on the decided subject matter.

The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeals as they had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the dispute. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence and in not deciding the issue on merits. The non-submission of a remand report by the AO was used to the disadvantage of the assessee.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme to settle the matter.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's lack of knowledge of the ex-parte orders. The appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits.

The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeals as they had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the dispute. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the PCIT accepted the application. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per their request.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's lack of knowledge of the ex-parte orders. The appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits.

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

The Tribunal held that a generalized conclusion could not be drawn from the seized document alone, especially when some dates indicated future transactions relative to the search date. Without corroborative evidence, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations. The Tribunal found no evidence of malafide or deliberate delay by the assessee.

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

The Tribunal held that the trust deed did not contain any clause for revocability, making it an irrevocable trust eligible for exemption. It also found that the salary paid to specified persons was not excessive and that deposits in Lord Krishna Bank did not violate Section 11(5).

The tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

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

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' petition was accepted. The Revenue did not object to this request.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the matter was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order was unsustainable as it was based on third-party statements without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

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

The Tribunal held that interest paid on fresh loans taken to repay old business loans should be allowed as it retains the character of business expenditure. For exceptional items, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of specific conditions.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order was unsustainable as it was based on third-party statements without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on fresh loans taken to repay old business loans should be allowed as it retains the character of business expenditure. For exceptional items, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of specific conditions.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on fresh loans taken to repay old business loans should be allowed as it retains the character of business expenditure. For exceptional items, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of specific conditions.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Department was not maintainable as the monetary limit involved was less than the prescribed limit. The matter was not covered by any exceptions.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect as the contract receipts were earned by the JV partner (KIEL) and already offered for taxation by them. Taxing the same income again in the hands of the JV would amount to double taxation.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme to settle the dispute.

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

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following previous rulings by the ITAT and the jurisdictional High Court. These decisions held that delayed deposits of employees' PF and ESI contributions, if made before the due date of filing the return, are allowable deductions.