ITAT Jaipur Judgments — September 2021

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry by examining financial statements, tax returns from earlier years, and specifically questioning the cash ledger and availability of cash. The AO had taken a prudent view in accepting the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonably explained the source of deposits in her bank account, supported by bank statements and previous year's income disclosure. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not allowing the benefit of cash withdrawal as a source for peak credit.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to treat the appeal and cross-objection as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were bad in law due to lack of proper approval and satisfaction from higher authorities under Section 151 of the Act. The approval process was found to be mechanical and ritualistic, lacking application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were bad in law due to lack of proper approval and satisfaction from higher authorities under Section 151 of the Act. The approval process was found to be mechanical and ritualistic, lacking application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had already conducted inquiries on the limited issues. The PCIT's direction to conduct a fresh assessment on issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny was deemed bad in law.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 of the Act. This was primarily because the basis for reopening, which stemmed from an excise department's show-cause notice, was subsequently withdrawn by the excise authorities themselves.

The Tribunal held that if employee's contributions to PF/ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, are not applicable to the impugned assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and examined the documents provided by the assessee. The Principal CIT's order was based on a change of opinion and lacked valid jurisdiction, as the AO's assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal held that interest on the portion of the loan used for construction of the house property is deductible under Section 24(b), and interest on the portion used for lending is deductible against interest income under 'Income from other sources'. The addition for unexplained cash deposit was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) were not applicable as there was a prior agreement to sell in AY 2010-11, and the registration in AY 2015-16 did not attract the amended provisions. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the data format issue causing incorrect reporting of deposit dates. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the actual deposit dates.

The Tribunal held that the commission paid was an allowable business expenditure as the assessee had produced all necessary documents and the recipients had declared the income. The trading addition was deleted as the assessee maintained complete books of account and records which were duly audited.

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 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 appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- made under Section 68, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction as an advance for sale. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the explanation for the source of deposits (agricultural income) was accepted by the Revenue in set-aside proceedings, there was no basis for levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was directed to be deleted.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the adjournment applications due to the assessees' conduct and lack of reasonable grounds. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeals in limine due to the delay in filing and lack of sufficient cause for condonation.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal dismissed the adjournment applications due to the assessee's conduct and lack of valid reasons. The appeals were also dismissed in limine due to the delay in filing and the casual manner in which condonation was sought.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's detailed reply to the show cause notice under Section 263 was filed after the deadline and was not considered by the Principal CIT. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Principal CIT for fresh consideration after taking into account the assessee's reply.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee was necessary for deciding the appeal and would not cause prejudice to the revenue. Therefore, the CIT(A) was directed to admit the additional evidence and decide the case afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and waived all rights to pursue the matter. The Revenue had no objection.

The Tribunal held that the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act does not automatically prove a contravention of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiries to establish that the cash loan was indeed taken.

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

The Tribunal upheld the revision order passed by the Principal CIT under Section 263. It found that the Assessing Officer's assessment order was not in accordance with law and was prejudicial to the revenue, and the assessee's arguments and case laws were not tenable.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.

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

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

The Tribunal held that there was no delay in filing the appeal and the mistake in filing before the wrong authority was rectified. The Tribunal condoned any delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the matter to the AO to verify if the NBFCs had offered the interest income to tax. If confirmed, the addition would be deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee primarily challenged the addition made on issues unrelated to the original reasons for reassessment. The Tribunal found that the AO made additions on issues that were not the basis for reopening the assessment.