ITAT Jaipur Judgments — October 2022

The Tribunal held that the assessee trust is a revocable trust and not an AOP. The income earned by the trust is to be taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries, not the trust itself.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's initial submissions regarding additional evidence were not properly considered by the lower authorities, the assessee is not entitled to produce evidence afresh as a matter of right. However, considering the interest of proper adjudication, the matter was set aside to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The explanation provided was not supported by cogent evidence, and the assessee did not demonstrate diligence.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, finding it necessary for proper adjudication. Consequently, the matter was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, confirming a reduced trading addition of Rs. 3 lacs for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 2 lacs for AY 2012-13. A portion of the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted, while another part was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not valid as it was based on a change of opinion and not on the failure of the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, confirming a reduced trading addition of Rs. 3 lacs for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 2 lacs for AY 2012-13. A portion of the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted, while another part was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not valid as it was based on a change of opinion and not on the failure of the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the trading results were accepted and Section 145(3) was not invoked, the purchases could not be doubted without proper evidence or cross-examination. The disallowances on expenses were also deleted as the assessee had suffered Fringe Benefit Tax.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's share transactions were indeed share trading, not speculative business, based on the 'Buy Today & Sell Tomorrow' (BTST) pattern supported by contract notes. The additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were deleted.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence presented by the assessee and noted that the CIT(A) had not elaborated on the issues. Considering the interest of equity and justice, the Tribunal set aside both issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication after examining relevant documents.

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

The Tribunal decided to proceed ex-parte and, based on the available documents and the Revenue's arguments, upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The penalty was confirmed on the grounds of concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that additions under section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search, especially when the assessment was already completed prior to the search. Since no such material was found relating to the unsecured loans and commission, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that additions under section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search, especially when the assessment was already completed prior to the search. Since no such material was found relating to the unsecured loans and commission, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that additions under section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search, especially when the assessment was already completed prior to the search. Since no such material was found relating to the unsecured loans and commission, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities were not justified in confirming the additions. The assessee was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, violating principles of natural justice. No cogent evidence was found to show that the assessee had routed back her own unaccounted income in cash.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided evidence for the brought forward long term capital loss and the long term capital loss on sale of a plot. Therefore, the AO was directed to allow the set off of these losses against the capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF/ESI was paid before the due date of filing the return of income. Following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal ruled that the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that additions under section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search, especially when the assessment was already completed prior to the search. Since no such material was found relating to the unsecured loans and commission, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that Sections 269SS and 269T are attracted on a person-wise basis, not on the aggregate amount received or paid from all persons. Since the amount of loan taken from or repaid to each individual person did not exceed Rs. 20,000/-, the penalties were not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's action under Section 154 was not permissible as it was not a 'mistake apparent from record' but rather a change of opinion or review of a debatable issue. The Tribunal also noted the violation of natural justice principles by the AO.

The Tribunal confirmed the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts under Section 145(3) due to significant defects. The Tribunal also upheld the AO's action of applying an 8% net profit rate, considering past performance and the lack of controverting arguments from the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had acquired leasehold rights for 99 years in the property from RIICO through a sale agreement. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Pune in Bhavna Shashikant Ghone vs ITO Ward 12(2), Pune, which explicitly held that leasehold rights are not covered under the statutory definition of 'any immovable property' as defined in Explanation (d)(i) to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) as 'being land or building or both'. The Tribunal adopted the reasoning from Bhavna Shashikant Ghone, stating that similar to Section 50C(1), leasehold rights do not fall under the specified categories of 'land or building or both'. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the AO and CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(b) for the acquisition of leasehold rights. The addition of Rs. 26,10,078/- was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal also noted that the RIICO letter dated 06-01-2014 clearly indicated that the assessee received leasehold rights for 99 years.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the amendment to Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was prospective, and therefore, not applicable for the assessment years under consideration. The additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the revenue failed to prove that the advances in question were taken or given by the assessee and that the 'dumb documents' lacked corroborative evidence. The CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the revenue failed to prove that the advances in question were taken or given by the assessee and that the 'dumb documents' lacked corroborative evidence. The CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the revenue failed to prove that the advances in question were taken or given by the assessee and that the 'dumb documents' lacked corroborative evidence. The CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty was set aside.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB(1)(c) is not sustainable on additions made purely on the basis of valuation differences or estimates, especially concerning inherited or old family jewelry. The penalty levied on such additions was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided a complete chain of documents supporting the transaction, including purchase and sale contract notes, bank statements, and demat statements. The Tribunal found that the AO's conclusion of a bogus transaction was based on assumptions and statements of unrelated individuals.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided a complete chain of documents supporting the transaction, including purchase and sale contract notes, bank statements, and demat statements. The Tribunal found that the AO's conclusion of a bogus transaction was based on assumptions and statements of unrelated individuals.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to issue an appropriate show-cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. The AO had made inquiries and considered the evidence submitted by the assessee, taking a plausible view. The PCIT's action was considered a fishing inquiry to substitute his own view, which is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to issue an appropriate show-cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled its onus under Section 68 by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan creditors. The additions made by the lower authorities were found to be without merit.

The Tribunal found that while the AO had grounds to reject the books of accounts, the trading addition made was excessive. The Tribunal restricted the Gross Profit (GP) addition to 1.06% based on comparative profits in similar trades and the increased turnover. Other grounds were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to issue an appropriate show-cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to issue an appropriate show-cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to issue an appropriate show-cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to issue an appropriate show-cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.

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), it cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal noted that the core issue revolved around the land introduced in the firm, accounted for as capital and other liability of the partner. The Tribunal found that there was no satisfactory proof whether the impugned land was agricultural or non-agricultural. If it was non-agricultural, it could not be accounted for as a capital asset. The Tribunal also observed that the AO had not considered whether the excess amount accounted for was chargeable under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by passing a speaking order. The Tribunal felt that these issues required an examination of the facts of the land, and an opportunity should be given to both parties. The Tribunal directed the AO to examine afresh whether the land was agricultural land in the year of transfer and decide the applicability of provisions like Section 45(3) read with Section 2(14), after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The appeal filed by the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a conduit for clients and Google Singapore, with both the advertisers and target audience being outside India. Therefore, the Equalization Levy was not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted the required inquiries and taken a plausible view, and the PCIT's order was not justified. The revisionary powers under Section 263 were not correctly invoked as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adopted unfair means to claim the deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) by making donations to an organization that admitted to not conducting any research and refunding donations. Therefore, the deduction was disallowed.

The Tribunal held that the grounds related to the validity of the assessment order and the ex-parte nature of the proceedings (Grounds 1 and 2) are dismissed. The assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) filed written submissions but neither argued these grounds nor provided contrary material to rebut the lower authorities' observations, especially since the assessee had not filed a return of income. Regarding the addition on account of LTCG (Ground 3.1), the Tribunal noted that the AO relied solely on the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authorities without bringing evidence of the assessee receiving excess consideration. Citing decisions like CIT vs Khandelwal Shringi & Co., the Tribunal held that in the absence of evidence, a higher price cannot be presumed from registered sale deeds, and Stamp Valuation Authority rates are for registration purposes, not necessarily the sale price. Therefore, no addition is liable to be made, and the addition sustained by the CIT(A) is deleted. Concerning the denial of deduction under Section 54B (Ground 3.2), the Tribunal followed the decision in Prakash Karnawal vs ITO, holding that for claiming deduction under Section 54B, the assessee is required to invest the amount as per actual sale consideration, not DLC rates. The assessee had invested Rs. 13,51,388/- in the purchase of new assets, which was more than the actual LTCG of Rs. 6,71,250/-. Thus, no addition is required to be made. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C (Ground 4) is consequential, and since the additions are deleted, this ground is also addressed. The appeal is partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adopted unfair means to claim the deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) by making donations to an organization that admitted to not conducting any research and refunding donations. Therefore, the deduction was disallowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one chance to furnish the required details due to lack of proper knowledge and in the interest of natural justice. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.