ITAT Jaipur Judgments — October 2021

The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to ESI and PF are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B. The recent amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal summarily without deciding the issue on merits. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of deposits.

The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition based on assumption and presumption without any material evidence to prove the payment was made during the assessment year. The assessee had also provided reasons for the transaction not materializing due to seller's family disputes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity to present their case before the PCIT. The Tribunal also directed the PCIT to examine the contention regarding the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 in light of the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The matter was set aside to the file of the PCIT for fresh adjudication.

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 held that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order without issuing a notice of hearing to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as there was no corroborative material beyond the pen drive data. The assessee's explanations regarding discrepancies and the falsity of the pen drive entries were not properly addressed by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the share application money with the investor company. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's conclusion of an erroneous assessment was not justified based on the available evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's case was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal of the appeal.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.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 prayer to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's lack of due diligence and non-appearance, decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. This was done in the interest of justice and to provide one more opportunity for hearing, subject to a cost.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's lack of due diligence and non-appearance, decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. This was done in the interest of justice and to provide one more opportunity for hearing, subject to a cost.

The Tribunal held that once books of accounts are rejected, income should be estimated on a reasonable basis like past GP rates. The addition of 25% of purchases was reduced to the differential between the declared GP and the average past GP rate.

The Tribunal held that the transaction was a genuine family transaction for the purchase of family property, and the assessee had a reasonable cause for accepting cash, especially when insisted upon by the seller. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was obtained from the Joint Commissioner, who was the competent authority at the relevant time under the unamended Section 151. However, regarding the explanation for cash deposits, the Tribunal remanded the matter for verification of gift receipts and set aside the issue of peak credit to the AO for examination.

The Tribunal held that the property was purchased by M/s Seven Star Township Pvt. Ltd., not the assessee, and the assessee acted only as a Power of Attorney holder for registry purposes. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) based findings on assumptions and presumptions without rebutting the presumption of correctness attached to registered documents.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-appeal filed by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme to settle the matter. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had confined their findings only to mutual fund redemptions, ignoring the broader issue of whether the assessee acted as an investor or trader in both shares and mutual funds. The matter was restored back to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-appeal filed by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the higher sale consideration for the land. The registered sale deed and statements of purchasers corroborated the lower sale consideration, making the assessee's claim of Rs. 20.80 lacs unsubstantiated.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the COVID-19 pandemic and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee and restored the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the COVID-19 pandemic and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee and restored the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 50,05,578/- towards Long Term Capital Gains was inadvertently made by the AO while computing the total income, as it was not an issue that arose for consideration during reassessment. The assessee had also offered capital gains and losses in their return filed under Section 148.

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

The Tribunal held that since the employee's contribution to PF and ESI was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance made under Section 143(1) is not sustainable. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is not applicable to the impugned assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 50,05,578/- towards Long Term Capital Gains was inadvertently made by the AO while computing the total income, as it was not an issue that arose for consideration during reassessment. The assessee had also offered capital gains and losses in their return filed under Section 148.

The Tribunal held that the advances were made for business expediency and commercial purposes, citing the assessee's own funds and the business nexus with the recipient parties. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The revenue did not raise any objection to this request.

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

The Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable cause for non-appearance due to the pandemic and deserved another opportunity. The matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination.

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

The Tribunal held that procedural rules are subservient to justice and that dismissing an appeal solely on technical grounds like e-filing, when a paper appeal was filed, would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without tangible material in possession of the AO at the time of recording reasons. Subsequent inquiries could not supplement the initial reasons. The Tribunal also noted that the notice under Section 148 was issued by a non-jurisdictional AO, but the assessee had not objected to the jurisdiction earlier.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not based on tangible material shared with the assessee, and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain. Therefore, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that procedural rules are subservient to justice and that dismissing an appeal solely on technical grounds like e-filing, when a paper appeal was filed, would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that procedural rules are subservient to justice and that dismissing an appeal solely on technical grounds like e-filing, when a paper appeal was filed, would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that procedural rules are subservient to justice and that dismissing an appeal solely on technical grounds like e-filing, when a paper appeal was filed, would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and, with no objection from the Revenue, permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the jewellery received as gifts from relatives and inherited from parents was sufficiently explained by the valuation reports and supporting documents. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed in part by the CIT(A) was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the jewellery received as gifts from relatives and inherited from parents was sufficiently explained by the valuation reports and supporting documents. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed in part by the CIT(A) was therefore not sustainable.

The assessee moved an application for withdrawal of the appeal during the hearing. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal.

The Tribunal held that the jewellery received as gifts from relatives and inherited from parents was sufficiently explained by the valuation reports and supporting documents. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed in part by the CIT(A) was therefore not sustainable.