ITAT Jaipur Judgments — January 2022

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) is primarily required to examine the objects of the society and the genuineness of its activities, not the application of income at the stage of granting registration. The Tribunal found that the assessee's objects were charitable and the allegations against them were not proven.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the opening cash balance of Rs. 7,00,000/- and the cash deposit of Rs. 12,50,000/- from the sale of a plot. The AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to disprove the assessee's claims.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to ESI and PF, when paid before the due date of filing the return, is incorrect. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to ESI and PF, when paid before the due date of filing the return, is incorrect. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to ESI and PF, when paid before the due date of filing the return, is incorrect. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to ESI and PF, when paid before the due date of filing the return, is incorrect. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to ESI and PF, when paid before the due date of filing the return, is incorrect. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to ESI and PF, when paid before the due date of filing the return, is incorrect. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to ESI and PF, when paid before the due date of filing the return, is incorrect. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to ESI and PF, when paid before the due date of filing the return, is incorrect. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return, is not sustainable. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return, is not sustainable. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return, is not sustainable. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return, is not sustainable. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return, is not sustainable. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return, is not sustainable. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return, is not sustainable. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal found that disallowances were made on an ad hoc basis without sufficient evidence. It held that expenses were supported by vouchers and incurred for business purposes, relying on commercial expediency and case law.

The Tribunal held that interest income from loans to employees is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it's not from the core business activity with members, relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision. However, the claim for depreciation on the building was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance of notices as he had shifted his residence and filed his return of income at the new location. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.

The ITAT, while noting the assessee's lack of diligence, decided to provide one more opportunity for a hearing to ensure principles of natural justice are followed. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings completed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) are invalid and unsustainable in law. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order, following binding precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. The show cause notice was issued with a very short hearing date, and the assessee's request for adjournment was not considered.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021, is applicable prospectively from A.Y. 2021-22. Therefore, for the assessment year under consideration, the disallowance made by the CPC is not justified.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in rejecting the TDS credit claim on technical grounds of limitation, as the TDS was duly reflected in Form 26AS and the income was offered to tax. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural technicalities should not stand in the way of justice and directed the AO to grant the TDS credit and consequential refund.

The Tribunal held that since the Manglam Group had accepted the 'N Trading Company' data and settled the matter before the Settlement Commission, the additions made in the assessee's hands were unjustified. The CIT(A)'s deletion of these additions was affirmed.

The Tribunal held that since the Manglam Group, specifically M/s Manglam Builder & Developer Ltd., had owned up to the 'N Trading Company' data and offered it for taxation before the Settlement Commission, the additions made in the assessee's hands were unjustified. The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency with previous coordinate bench decisions.

The Tribunal held that since the Manglam Group, specifically M/s Manglam Builder & Developer Ltd., had owned up to the 'N Trading Company' data and offered it for taxation before the Settlement Commission, the additions made in the assessee's hands were unjustified. The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency with previous coordinate bench decisions.

The Tribunal held that since the Manglam Group, specifically M/s Manglam Builder & Developer Ltd., had owned up to the 'N Trading Company' data and offered it for taxation before the Settlement Commission, the additions made in the assessee's hands were unjustified. The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency with previous coordinate bench decisions.

The Tribunal held that since the Manglam Group had accepted the 'N Trading Company' data and settled the matter before the Settlement Commission, the additions made in the assessee's hands were unjustified. The CIT(A)'s deletion of these additions was affirmed.

The Tribunal held that since M/s Manglam Builder & Developer Ltd. had owned up the 'on-money' data and offered it for taxation before the Settlement Commission, and no evidence indicated the assessee received any share of this 'on-money', the addition made by the AO was rightly deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified. It followed a previous decision where a similar addition was deleted because the developer had owned up the 'on-money' receipts and offered them for taxation.

The Tribunal held that since M/s Manglam Builder & Developer Ltd. had owned up the 'on-money' data and offered it for taxation before the Settlement Commission, and no evidence indicated the assessee received any share of this 'on-money', the addition made by the AO was rightly deleted by the CIT(A).