Loading ITAT cases…
518 tribunal orders from the Jaipur bench in 2022.
Showing 40 of 518 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to COVID-19. It allowed the deletion of Rs. 2,18,100/- received from friends and relatives, and restored the remaining addition to the AO for fresh verification of the cash flow statement.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI paid after the due date, citing the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) was considered to be applicable, requiring deposit before the due date for deductibility.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte. While disagreeing with the assessee's claim of no opportunity, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication in the interest of equity and justice.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that the second assessment order was unsustainable. It was held that an issue already scrutinized and decided in a prior assessment order cannot be reopened by the same AO, especially without new information.
The Tribunal held that the additions were made on suspicion without confronting the assessee with the investigation reports or providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The assessee had provided documentary evidence to support the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were void due to the lack of a valid transfer order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act. The addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment was also challenged.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had not properly applied his mind to the allowability of the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The PCIT's order setting aside the assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A). It was held that Section 68 is not applicable to sales transactions already recorded in the profit and loss account, as this would amount to double taxation. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the cash sales.
The Tribunal held that TDS credit should be allowed for the assessment year in which the income is assessable, irrespective of when the TDS was deducted. Regarding business expenses, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer lacked sufficient details to verify the claim and remanded the issue for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue Authorities rejected the rectification application mechanically without considering the facts. It found that there was a typing error in the 'inadmissible' column, and the addition made by the AO was unjustified. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 147 was made without jurisdiction as the AO concluded that income had not escaped assessment. Regarding disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal found that PAN was furnished by the transporter, making the disallowance unsustainable. The addition under Section 69C was deleted as it was made on an estimated basis without rejecting the books of account.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte due to the assessee's non-submission of documents. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, reducing the trading addition by estimating profit at 8% instead of 20% and deleting additions made under Section 68, considering that confirmations from creditors were provided after the rejection of books of accounts.
The Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities, holding that the assessee had deliberately not disclosed true income and furnished inaccurate particulars with the intention to evade tax. The assessee failed to substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal found that the assessee provided sufficient documentation and evidence to demonstrate the genuineness of the share transactions and the source of funds. The revision order by the Principal CIT was found to be erroneous as the AO had conducted necessary inquiries.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, emphasizing that the assessee should be given an adequate opportunity to present their case with necessary evidence and submissions.
The Tribunal held that the credit entries in the assessee's account were offset by corresponding debit entries in another group account, indicating no revenue impact. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning that these were transfers of capital and not income.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on suspicion and an unsigned agreement, with no tangible material to support the revenue's view. The actual transfer of shares occurred in a subsequent year and was duly disclosed and taxed.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in adding the opening capital as income when the same tally data, from which the AO accepted the income, also reflected the opening capital. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s finding that the opening capital could not be considered income for the year.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on suspicion and an unsigned agreement, with no tangible material to support the revenue's view. The actual transfer of shares occurred in a subsequent year and was duly disclosed and taxed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 76,29,000/- was covered by the income disclosed by the assessee's father and the peak credit theory. The addition of Rs. 16,43,150/- was also deleted as it was covered by the cash available in the memoranda cash book submitted by the father.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in adding the opening capital as income when the same tally data, from which the AO accepted the income, also reflected the opening capital. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s finding that the opening capital could not be considered income for the year.
The Tribunal held that the credit entries in the assessee's account were offset by corresponding debit entries in another group account, indicating no revenue impact. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning that these were transfers of capital and not income.
The Tribunal held that the income in question was recorded in 'other documents' maintained in the normal course and thus did not fall within the definition of 'undisclosed income' under Section 271AAB. Consequently, the penalty levied was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that excess stock found during search should be treated as business income and not income from other sources, thus Section 115BBE was not applicable. The PCIT erred in directing the AO to tax it under Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to provide any evidence to controvert the findings of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice for penalty was vague as it did not specify the relevant clause of Section 271AAB. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the surrendered income was not necessarily 'undisclosed income' as defined for the purpose of penalty under Section 271AAB.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice for penalty was vague as it did not specify the relevant clause of Section 271AAB. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the surrendered income was not necessarily 'undisclosed income' as defined for the purpose of penalty under Section 271AAB.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the cash deposits were consistent with the percentage of cash sales and had been made in similar proportions in prior and subsequent periods. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO had not rejected the assessee's books of accounts.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as no incriminating material was found at the assessee's residence. The ledger account also indicated MBDL provided advances to the assessee, not the other way around.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Regarding the addition under Section 68, the tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their onus by filing loan creditor confirmations and that the AO had not made independent inquiries, thus allowing the ground of appeal.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, granting the assessee one more opportunity, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- for negligent attitude.
The Tribunal held that additions under section 153C can only be made if incriminating material seized pertains to the assessment years in question. Since no evidence of 'on-money' receipt for the relevant assessment years was brought on record, the addition made on estimation basis was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that a related entity had owned up the data before the Settlement Commission, and similar additions had been deleted by coordinate benches.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that additions under section 153C can only be made if incriminating material seized pertains to the assessment years in question. Since no evidence of 'on-money' receipt for the relevant assessment years was brought on record, the addition made on estimation basis was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that a related entity had owned up the data before the Settlement Commission, and similar additions had been deleted by coordinate benches.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 to correct the section under which penalty was leviable was beyond the powers vested in him. The Tribunal relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions stating that the Commissioner cannot direct the initiation of penalty proceedings in revision.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 to correct the section under which penalty was leviable was beyond the powers vested in him. The Tribunal relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions stating that the Commissioner cannot direct the initiation of penalty proceedings in revision.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 to correct the section under which penalty was leviable was beyond the powers vested in him. The Tribunal relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions stating that the Commissioner cannot direct the initiation of penalty proceedings in revision.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 to correct the section under which penalty was leviable was beyond the powers vested in him. The Tribunal relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions stating that the Commissioner cannot direct the initiation of penalty proceedings in revision.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 to correct the section under which penalty was leviable was beyond the powers vested in him. The Tribunal relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions stating that the Commissioner cannot direct the initiation of penalty proceedings in revision.