ITAT Jaipur Judgments — September 2022

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to point out specific defects in the assessee's accounts and that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and ITAT judgments emphasizing that accounts should be presumed correct unless there are strong reasons to doubt them.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee suo motu disclosed the facts and did not claim TDS on the interest, there was no misrepresentation or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. Consequently, the penalty levied was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided confirmations from loan creditors with PAN details, furnished financial statements of the lenders, and made interest payments through account payee cheques after deducting TDS. These facts were known to the AO, who failed to provide cogent contrary findings against the evidence filed by the assessee. The Tribunal found the AO's addition to be arbitrary and rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed. For ITA No. 154/JP/2020 (AY 2012-13), the facts and issues were similar, and the decision in ITA No. 26/JP/2020 (AY 2015-16) was applied mutatis mutandis. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicable as the dominant motive of the corporation is not profit, but advancement of an object of general public utility. The profits are to be used for road development, aligning with charitable purposes.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicable as the dominant motive of the corporation is not profit, but advancement of an object of general public utility. The profits are to be used for road development, aligning with charitable purposes.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicable as the dominant motive of the corporation is not profit, but advancement of an object of general public utility. The profits are to be used for road development, aligning with charitable purposes.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicable as the dominant motive of the corporation is not profit, but advancement of an object of general public utility. The profits are to be used for road development, aligning with charitable purposes.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a pen drive found during a search, especially when the employee from whom it was seized was not examined. Furthermore, protective additions cannot survive without substantive additions, which were not made in this case.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a pen drive found during a search, especially when the employee from whom it was seized was not examined. Furthermore, protective additions cannot survive without substantive additions, which were not made in this case.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a pen drive found during a search, especially when the employee from whom it was seized was not examined. Furthermore, protective additions cannot survive without substantive additions, which were not made in this case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided confirmations from loan creditors with PAN details, furnished financial statements of the lenders, and made interest payments through account payee cheques after deducting TDS. These facts were known to the AO, who failed to provide cogent contrary findings against the evidence filed by the assessee. The Tribunal found the AO's addition to be arbitrary and rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed. For ITA No. 154/JP/2020 (AY 2012-13), the facts and issues were similar, and the decision in ITA No. 26/JP/2020 (AY 2015-16) was applied mutatis mutandis. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that protective additions cannot be sustained without substantive additions, especially when the source of income is not identified or taxed in the hands of any other assessee. The evidence from the pen drive was not properly verified, and the statement of the person from whom it was seized was not recorded.

The Tribunal held that protective additions cannot be sustained without substantive additions, especially when the source of income is not identified or taxed in the hands of any other assessee. The evidence from the pen drive was not properly verified, and the statement of the person from whom it was seized was not recorded.

The Tribunal held that protective additions cannot be sustained without substantive additions, especially when the source of income is not identified or taxed in the hands of any other assessee. The evidence from the pen drive was not properly verified, and the statement of the person from whom it was seized was not recorded.

The Tribunal held that protective additions cannot be sustained without substantive additions, especially when the source of income is not identified or taxed in the hands of any other assessee. The evidence from the pen drive was not properly verified, and the statement of the person from whom it was seized was not recorded.

The Tribunal held that protective additions cannot be sustained without substantive additions, especially when the source of income is not identified or taxed in the hands of any other assessee. The evidence from the pen drive was not properly verified, and the statement of the person from whom it was seized was not recorded.

The Tribunal held that protective additions cannot be sustained without substantive additions, especially when the source of income is not identified or taxed in the hands of any other assessee. The evidence from the pen drive was not properly verified, and the statement of the person from whom it was seized was not recorded.

The Tribunal held that protective additions cannot be sustained without substantive additions, especially when the source of income is not identified or taxed in the hands of any other assessee. The evidence from the pen drive was not properly verified, and the statement of the person from whom it was seized was not recorded.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning the disallowance of interest expenses on advances to subsidiaries, finding that the CIT(A) had exceeded his jurisdiction in making the enhancement. However, the addition related to interest on income tax refund was sustained as the assessee failed to provide counter-arguments.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the AO's additions were based on suspicion and surmises without cogent material, while the assessee provided documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the share transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the AO's additions were based on suspicion and surmises without cogent material, while the assessee provided documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the share transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the AO's additions were based on suspicion and surmises without cogent material, while the assessee provided documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the share transactions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning the disallowance of interest expenses on advances to subsidiaries, finding that the CIT(A) had exceeded his jurisdiction in making the enhancement. However, the addition related to interest on income tax refund was sustained as the assessee failed to provide counter-arguments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. However, since the assessee did not present any arguments for the substantive grounds of appeal, the appeal was decided ex-parte.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had relied on previous orders without independently examining the facts for the current assessment year. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the admissibility of the deduction claimed under Section 80IB.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the AO's additions were based on suspicion and surmises without cogent material, while the assessee provided documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the share transactions.

The Tribunal held that the Section 143(1)(a) intimation was not reflected on the system, and the consequent demand had merged into the order passed under Section 143(3). Therefore, the assessee had no further grievance.

The Tribunal held that protective additions cannot be sustained without substantive additions, especially when the source of income is not identified or taxed in the hands of any other assessee. The evidence from the pen drive was not properly verified, and the statement of the person from whom it was seized was not recorded.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the AO's additions were based on suspicion and surmises without cogent material, while the assessee provided documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the share transactions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It observed that the CIT(E) relied on pre-amended Rule 17A, which required original documents, whereas the current rule allows for self-certified copies.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a pen drive found during a search, especially when the employee from whom it was seized was not examined. Furthermore, protective additions cannot survive without substantive additions, which were not made in this case.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicable as the dominant motive of the corporation is not profit, but advancement of an object of general public utility. The profits are to be used for road development, aligning with charitable purposes.

The Tribunal held that protective additions cannot be sustained without substantive additions, especially when the source of income is not identified or taxed in the hands of any other assessee. The evidence from the pen drive was not properly verified, and the statement of the person from whom it was seized was not recorded.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal (ITA No. 25/JP/2020) was dismissed. The Tribunal found no perversity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs. 1,94,83,135/- related to the misuse of the CCM facility. The Tribunal noted that the revenue had not made any attempt to disclose incriminating material and was unable to explain or give any indication about it. The questions of law proposed by the revenue were squarely covered by the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra), and therefore, no substantial question of law arose. Regarding the assessee's cross-objection (CO No. 17/JP/2020), the Tribunal allowed it and vacated the disallowance of Rs. 8,10,898/-. The Tribunal observed that no questions were raised to the parties regarding the pen drive find, and the statement of the employee from whom it was seized was not recorded. Therefore, no addition could be made based solely on the pen drive. Furthermore, on merits, the addition could not be sustained as there was no substantive addition in the hands of those who claimed additional interest as income, and the income was not recorded. The revenue did not point out any incriminating material or statement to support the addition. The assessee proved that interest paid was recorded in books, and TDS was deducted where applicable. The alleged additional interest was not paid, and the parties were not questioned. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was made without supporting contentions, inquiry, or confirmation, and vacated the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the surrendered income covered all irregularities in the assessee's books. Recalculating the GP with the surrendered income showed a higher rate than the average. Following the precedent set in the assessee's brother's case, the trading addition was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment was not valid as it was based on the same material considered during the original assessment, amounting to a change of opinion. Consequently, the additions made were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income Tax Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, they are not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had conducted necessary inquiries and accepted the assessee's submissions based on the available record.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to discharge its burden regarding the genuineness of purchases, the addition of 25% of purchases by the AO was not justified. The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the unaccounted profit at 12% on the amount of bogus purchases, following jurisdictional High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a procedural requirement and not a mandatory condition for disallowing foreign tax credit. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments stating that procedural laws are subservient to justice and do not extinguish substantive rights.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance and lack of controverting reply. The delay in filing documents was condoned, but the orders of the CIT(A) were sustained on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the return, as the capital gains would have been below the taxable limit if indexed cost of acquisition and improvement were considered. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271F was deleted.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of miscellaneous expenses was not justified as the expenses were supported by bills and vouchers, and the AO did not conduct necessary investigations. The Tribunal also held that the disallowance of interest expenses was not warranted as the assessee had sufficient non-interest-bearing funds to cover its investments.

The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders and the assessee could not defend their case. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment, with a cost of Rs. 2,000 imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that proper service of notice is essential for imposing a penalty. Since there was no proof of delivery for the notice, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as it was filed late without a condonation application and the assessee failed to rectify defects or file the appeal electronically. The CIT(A) had also dismissed the appeal for similar reasons.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A was not applicable as the assessee, an individual, did not claim any expenditure. Regarding the cash deposit, the Tribunal found that the AO had made adequate enquiries and the source was explained as withdrawal from the assessee's capital account in a partnership firm.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted the required inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation after due application of mind. The PCIT's revision order was set aside as the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's arguments regarding miscommunication with a consultant, management changes, or lack of trained staff do not constitute a reasonable cause for statutory non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271FA was sustained.