ITAT Jaipur Judgments — November 2022

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot direct the initiation or correction of penalty proceedings under Section 263, as penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings. The AO's decision on initiating penalty, including the section, is within their discretion.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot direct the initiation or correction of penalty proceedings under Section 263, as penalty proceedings are not part of assessment proceedings. The AO's decision on initiating penalty, including the section, is within their discretion.

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 allowed the admission of additional evidence and restored the case to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to consider the additional evidence and decide the case on merits after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including survey reports, payment by cheque, TDS deduction, and ITRs of the recipients, to substantiate the expenses. The AO failed to conduct a comprehensive verification and provide an opportunity for cross-examination as directed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including survey reports, payment by cheque, TDS deduction, and ITRs of the recipients, to substantiate the expenses. The AO failed to conduct a comprehensive verification and provide an opportunity for cross-examination as directed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including survey reports, payment by cheque, TDS deduction, and ITRs of the recipients, to substantiate the expenses. The AO failed to conduct a comprehensive verification and provide an opportunity for cross-examination as directed.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked proper jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 153C as the satisfaction note was recorded before the AO obtained jurisdiction over the assessee's case. Therefore, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including survey reports, payment by cheque, TDS deduction, and ITRs of the recipients, to substantiate the expenses. The AO failed to conduct a comprehensive verification and provide an opportunity for cross-examination as directed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including sales bills, stock registers, and VAT returns, to substantiate the genuineness of the sales.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had substantiated the cash receipts from sales with documentary evidence and consistent business history. The revenue failed to provide concrete evidence of bogus sales or undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the AO under Section 142(1) was sent to a different address, depriving the assessee of a hearing opportunity. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had taken a possible view and conducted the required inquiry, and the order could not be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The PCIT's revision order was vacated.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a contradictory order without proper reasoning or opportunity for the AO to present their case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a reasoned order after proper verification.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a contradictory order without proper reasoning or opportunity for the AO to present their case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a reasoned order after proper verification.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a contradictory order without proper reasoning or opportunity for the AO to present their case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a reasoned order after proper verification.

The Tribunal held that the LTCG claimed as exempt was not genuine but bogus, based on investigations revealing a modus operandi of price rigging and the provision of accommodation entries. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of disallowance for finance charges, holding that no disallowance can be made if the recipient has already paid taxes. However, the appeal regarding the addition for suppressed sales was not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts and the estimation of sales and profit. However, it deleted the addition on account of advances from customers. The disallowance of expenses was restricted to the amount confirmed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal proceeded to decide the case ex parte due to the assessee's consistent absence and lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The order of the CIT (Appeals) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion without fresh material. For AY 2014-15, it was held that since the assessee's own funds exceeded the FDR investment and interest income from other sources was more than interest expenditure, no interest expenditure could be allocated against the FDR interest income.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 because the undisclosed income surrendered during the survey should have been taxed under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE, not as business income. The AO's assessment was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance under Section 14A, stating that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover investments yielding exempt income. The Tribunal also held that the findings for AY 2018-19 would apply mutatis mutandis to AY 2019-20 for identical grounds.

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of the addition for advances received from customers, finding the AO's approach hasty. However, it dismissed the appeal regarding the disallowance of excess commission paid due to contradictory facts. The appeal concerning prior period expenses was also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were unsustainable as they were based on earlier assessment orders that had been revised or set aside. It also found that there was no delay on the part of the assessee in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to non-service of penalty orders. For one appeal, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration regarding tax credit.