ITAT Jaipur Judgments — April 2021

The Tribunal held that the assessee's declared GP rate was better than the average of the past three years and there was no valid basis for addition. The disallowance of tanker-related expenses was also found to be without merit.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on funds maintained in a savings bank account for regular business activities is an integral part of the society's business and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv). The reliance on the Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. case was deemed misplaced.

The Tribunal confirmed the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3). However, it restricted the addition on account of unverifiable purchases to 15%, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case and similar years.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.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 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate net profit at 0.20% on the turnover, considering the assessee's business on a commission basis. The reopening of assessment and ex-parte assessment were also held valid.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate net profit at 0.20% on the turnover, considering the assessee's business on a commission basis. The reopening of assessment and ex-parte assessment were also held valid.

The Tribunal held that the AO should have considered the actual transaction and the fraudulent nature of the sale deed. The matter was remanded to the AO to verify the actual consideration and the nature of the transaction.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.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 was justified in making a disallowance of 10% of the cash payment for job work charges due to the substantial amount paid in cash and the lack of complete supporting evidence to verify the genuineness of the expenses.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no legal infirmity in the reopening of assessment proceedings. The Tribunal agreed that the AO had sufficient material to form a prima facie belief that income had escaped assessment.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

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

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without jurisdiction as the transfer of jurisdiction order under Section 127 was passed after the notice was issued. Therefore, the assessment order was void ab initio.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. Regarding the commission, the Tribunal noted conflicting confirmations and the fact that the agreement was a draft. For the recovered advances, the Tribunal found confusion in the revenue's reasoning and directed the AO to re-examine the issue.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148 was granted mechanically without proper application of mind by the CIT. Consequently, the reassessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148 was granted mechanically without proper application of mind by the CIT. Consequently, the reassessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the bad debt claim was not erroneous as it related to an investment written off. Software upgradation charges were deemed revenue expenditure as they were recurring for usage. Vehicle expenses were not disallowed as no interest or maintenance was claimed for the relevant period. Therefore, the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal deleted the ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 2,50,000/- made on account of expenses, finding it unsustainable in law due to lack of specific findings. The other grounds were not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt's conclusion but the final order states the appeal is allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing gift deeds and an affidavit from the custodian. The Assessing Officer had also expressed satisfaction with the genuineness of the gifts in his remand report.

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

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 found merit in the assessee's contentions and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The disallowance of interest expenditure made by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. However, since the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the department had issued Form No. 3, the assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the Vivad Se Vishwas petition was accepted. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

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 prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 and the subsequent addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not the owner of the asset in question.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal as the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme settlement was accepted and Form 3 was issued.

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 prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the assessee opting for 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 permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This was in light of the assessee's participation in 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' for settlement.

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 object to the withdrawal.

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 permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting for resolution under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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

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

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.