ITAT Jaipur Judgments — June 2021

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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the cash deposit by providing evidence of the gift from his father, who had also appeared before the AO. The Tribunal followed various precedents stating that an assessee is not required to prove the source of the source of the funds.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 8,00,000 as unexplained income was not sustainable. It reasoned that the source of funds was not disputed and the issue was primarily a violation of Section 269SS, which attracts penalty, not reassessment for escaped income. The Tribunal also noted that the evidence relied upon was from a third party and lacked corroboration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of the assessee and the legal heir's lack of knowledge. It held that the sales made by the assessee out of cities were commission sales, not own sales, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer based on a high GP rate was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot expand the scope of limited scrutiny under Section 263. The AO had duly examined the issues for which the case was selected, and the PCIT's revision order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on borrowed funds parked in short-term deposits during the pre-operative period is an independent source of income and not connected with construction activities. Therefore, it is taxable under 'income from other sources' without allowing deduction for interest on borrowed capital.

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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as the assessee had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment. The AO's action was based on a review of existing information, constituting a change of opinion, which is not permissible under Section 147.

The Tribunal held that the receipts were contributions from members towards construction cost and not income of the society. The cost of construction exceeded the receipts, thus no surplus profit arose. The addition of sale proceeds and profit was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the receipts were contributions from members towards construction cost and not income of the society. The cost of construction exceeded the receipts, thus no surplus profit arose. The addition of sale proceeds and profit was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the receipts were contributions from members towards construction cost and not income of the society. The cost of construction exceeded the receipts, thus no surplus profit arose. The addition of sale proceeds and profit was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the receipts were contributions from members towards construction cost and not income of the society. The cost of construction exceeded the receipts, thus no surplus profit arose. The addition of sale proceeds and profit was deleted.

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 to settle the matter.

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

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted due inquiry and applied his mind. The revisionary order was quashed, and the AO's order was sustained.

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

The Tribunal noted that similar issues in a prior year were decided in favour of the assessee, citing negligible variations in yield and better GP. The Tribunal also followed a previous decision regarding commission payments, where a 15% disallowance was upheld as the assessee had not appealed it.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions related to bogus purchases and unexplained investment in stock. The Tribunal found that the partner of the assessee firm admitted that seized documents pertained partly to the assessee firm and partly to another firm, and the CIT(A)'s allocation based on a settlement commission order was reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the source of the cash deposits, as the alleged friend, Mr. Kana Ram, did not appear despite summons and his affidavit remained uncorroborated. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable as the assessee company was not a shareholder in the other company, and the transactions were business-related current account entries. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted as the transactions were genuine business transactions, and the conditions for exemption were met.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the delayed filing, and admitted the appeal for adjudication. Subsequently, as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the appeal was withdrawn, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of six days in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. Subsequently, the assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable as the assessee company was not a shareholder in the other company, and the transactions were business-related current account entries. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted as the transactions were genuine business transactions, and the conditions for exemption were met.

The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable as the assessee company was not a shareholder in the other company, and the transactions were business-related current account entries. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted as the transactions were genuine business transactions, and the conditions for exemption were met.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to lack of proper enquiry and verification of unsecured loans. However, it clarified that journal entries for purchases/expenses are not 'loans and advances' under Section 269SS.

The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeals. Subsequently, as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and obtained Form 3, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeals. Subsequently, as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and obtained Form 3, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues in a prior year were decided in favour of the assessee, citing negligible variations in yield and better GP. The Tribunal also followed a previous decision regarding commission payments, where a 15% disallowance was upheld as the assessee had not appealed it.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation regarding the genuineness of the transaction, including valuation and creditworthiness of the investor. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was sustained.

The Tribunal held that the addition for lease money was erroneous due to missing pages in the Mining Department's statement and remanded the matter to the AO for verification. The addition for trade creditors was confirmed as the assessee failed to provide substantiation. The disallowance of expenses was deleted as it was found to be ad-hoc.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Consequently, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The assessee's representative argued that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals did not exceed the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. This objection pertains to the maintainability of the appeals.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified as no expenditure was incurred for earning exempt income. The Tribunal also noted that the DVO's valuation report was faulty as it used CPWD rates instead of local PWD rates and made other incorrect calculations.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on incomplete information and unconcluded proceedings. It also found that the AO erred in adopting a higher sale value for land under Section 50C without proper justification or communication to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty valuation was less than 10%, and therefore, Section 50C would not apply. The AO's enhancement in capital gains computation was disapproved.

The Tribunal held that the payment to the UAE company was not taxable in India as services were rendered outside India, thus Section 40(a)(i) was not applicable. The disallowance of other expenses was also deleted as they were incurred for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty valuation was less than 10%, and therefore, Section 50C would not apply. The AO's enhancement in capital gains computation was disapproved.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. However, since the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and applied for withdrawal, the appeals were permitted to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. However, since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal, the appeals were permitted to be withdrawn.

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

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