ITAT Jaipur Judgments — April 2022

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence in their paper book, but these were not verified by the CIT(E). Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to submit the necessary documents to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the grievance arising from the impugned order was settled by the Assessing Officer passing an order in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the circumstances beyond the assessee's control. It held that the disallowance of employee's PF/ESIC contributions paid before the return filing due date was incorrect, following established High Court and Tribunal precedents.

The Tribunal allowed the first ground regarding cash deposits, finding that the CIT(A) erred in not granting full relief. For the second ground concerning Section 80C deduction, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for fresh consideration after presenting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 139(3) regarding the time limit for filing returns for carrying forward losses was not applicable retrospectively to the year the loss was incurred. Since the law at the time of incurring the loss did not have this restriction, and the department had allowed such set-offs in subsequent years, the claim was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 139(3) regarding timely filing for carry forward of losses was not applicable retrospectively to the year the loss was incurred. Since the department had allowed similar claims in subsequent years, the set off was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B, inserting Explanation 2, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B, inserting Explanation 2, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, including Explanation 2, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act, inserting Explanation 2, are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, these amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable and directed its deletion. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., which held that if the information provided by the assessee is not found to be incorrect, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Court observed that merely making a claim that is not sustainable in law does not, by itself, amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when no details supplied in the return were found to be incorrect or false. The Tribunal noted that the addition was made under the deeming provisions of Section 50C, and the assessee had acted on a bonafide belief regarding the sale consideration. The Tribunal found that the assessee had neither concealed particulars of income nor filed inaccurate particulars, and there was no deliberate or conscious breach of law. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B, inserting Explanation 2, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, including Explanation 2, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to settle under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and the subsequent actions taken. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee has opted for and made payment under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, there is no further cause of action to maintain the appeal. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to settle under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and the subsequent actions taken. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and placed Form No. 5 on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as there was no further cause of action.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bona fide belief that it was not liable to get its accounts audited under Section 44AB due to the nature of its receipts. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal found that the breach was technical and the assessee was entitled to absolution from penalty.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B were prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, these amendments were not applicable for the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bona fide belief that it was not liable to get its accounts audited under Section 44AB due to the nature of its receipts. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Tribunal found that the breach was technical and venial, and the assessee was entitled to absolution from penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bona fide belief that it was not liable to get its accounts audited under Section 44AB due to the nature of its receipts. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Tribunal found that the breach was technical and venial, and the assessee was entitled to absolution from penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bona fide belief that it was not liable to get its accounts audited under Section 44AB due to the nature of its receipts. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Tribunal found that the breach was technical and venial, and the assessee was entitled to absolution from penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bona fide belief that it was not liable to get its accounts audited under Section 44AB due to the nature of its receipts. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal found that the breach was technical and the assessee was entitled to absolution from the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bona fide belief that it was not liable to get its accounts audited under Section 44AB due to the nature of its receipts. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Tribunal found that the breach was technical and venial, and the assessee was entitled to absolution from penalty.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B were prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, these amendments were not applicable for the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing all necessary details, including ITRs and bank statements of the brokers, and that the sales invoices also reflected the brokers. Since the department had accepted the brokers' ITRs and no other defect was found, the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made on account of belated deposit of employee's contribution towards PF & ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return of income, is not sustainable. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary order was beyond the scope of section 263 as the AO had examined and accepted the issues raised. The PCIT could not substitute his own view for that of the AO when the AO had taken a possible view based on the evidence.

The Tribunal held that since the payments were made for services rendered and expenses incurred outside India, they were not chargeable to tax in India. Consequently, there was no liability to deduct tax at source under Section 195(1), and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without proper issuance of notice under section 143(2) within the prescribed time limit, rendering the assessment invalid. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the rectification application due to genuine reasons and admitted additional evidence. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E is mandatory and consequential in nature. Since the TDS statement was filed and processed after June 1, 2015, the adjustment made under Section 200A for the late fee was valid.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- based on retracted statements and a 'dumb document' without corroborative evidence was not justified. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 1,39,581/- for disallowed expenses was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2021, is applicable prospectively from AY 2021-22. Therefore, for the assessment year 2018-19, the disallowance made on account of delayed deposit of employee's contribution, when paid before the due date of filing the return, is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act is prospective. Therefore, the disallowance made for the assessment year 2018-19 is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) is not sustainable as the employee's contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective.

The Tribunal held that the addition based on the retracted statement was not sustainable without further evidence. The Tribunal also found that a payment of Rs. 30,800/- was adequately explained by the revised capital account and the undisclosed income offered.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, it is not applicable to the assessment year 2018-19.

The Tribunal held that the transaction of share allotment to a close relative is covered by the exemption under Section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2021, is applicable prospectively from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the disallowance made for the assessment year 2019-20 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the addition based on the retracted statement was not sustainable without further evidence. The Tribunal also found that a payment of Rs. 30,800/- was adequately explained by the revised capital account and the undisclosed income offered.

The Tribunal held that the addition based on the retracted statement was not sustainable without further evidence. The Tribunal also found that a payment of Rs. 30,800/- was adequately explained by the revised capital account and the undisclosed income offered.

The Tribunal held that the addition based on the retracted statement was not sustainable without further evidence. The Tribunal also found that a payment of Rs. 30,800/- was adequately explained by the revised capital account and the undisclosed income offered.

The Tribunal held that the addition based on the retracted statement was not sustainable without further evidence. The Tribunal also found that a payment of Rs. 30,800/- was adequately explained by the revised capital account and the undisclosed income offered.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It allowed the appeal partly, deleting the addition related to raw material expenses but confirming the addition for unexplained cash deposits, except for Rs. 3.00 lacs considered as the wife's stridhan.

The Tribunal held that the addition based on the retracted statement was not sustainable without further evidence. The Tribunal also found that a payment of Rs. 30,800/- was adequately explained by the revised capital account and the undisclosed income offered.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was ad-hoc and lacked specific findings regarding any particular expenditure being excessive or not genuine. Since the assessee's income was exempt and it had maintained audited books of accounts, the disallowance could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it on a technicality. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that if the employee's contribution to PF/ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.