ITAT Jaipur Judgments — January 2023

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause shown by the assessee. It further held that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, as a plausible view was taken after due inquiry.

The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the application without properly considering the assessee's reply and the material on record, particularly regarding the charitable nature of its objects.

The Tribunal noted that the tax auditor's reporting in Form 3CD was inadvertently incorrect, and most contributions were deposited before the due dates. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of the deposit dates.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing submissions during the COVID period. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's non-compliance was due to a technical issue with the email address provided for communication. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh hearing with adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF must be deposited on or before the due date specified in the respective Acts for deductibility. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was followed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer for technical latches and the case should be decided on merit. The delay in filing Form 10B was condoned, and the AO was directed to consider the assessee's claim for exemption.

The Tribunal held that Section 115JB is a special provision and a code in itself, and its applicability is defined by sub-section (2). It was found that the section primarily covers companies registered under the Companies Act and not corporations like the assessee, even if definitions in other sections might include them.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was maintainable and that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's failure to comply with the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T. The transactions were recorded in the books of both companies, and the explanation provided by the assessee, along with judicial precedents, supported the existence of a reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that the additional income was declared voluntarily before any detection by the revenue and that the assessee could not be held responsible for delayed reporting due to issues with TDS certificates. Therefore, it was not a case of concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make an addition on an issue that was not part of the original reasons recorded for reopening under Section 148, unless it is a subsequent discovery during the proceedings that also escaped assessment. Since the AO did not make any addition on the original ground and instead made an addition on a different issue, the proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares cannot be treated as bogus merely on the basis of departmental investigation in other cases, especially when the assessee has produced supporting evidence. The addition made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It admitted additional evidence regarding the cash payments and directed the AO to verify these documents and the sellers' reasons for accepting cash.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reopening of the assessment was based on suspicion without sufficient evidence. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the share transactions and that the AO had not brought any contrary material on record.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the SFT was due to institutional problems and lack of technical knowledge among branch managers, which constituted a reasonable cause. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that the breach was technical and venial, without any contumacious or dishonest conduct by the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds related to the reopening of the assessment. However, the ground concerning the addition of Rs. 25,00,000 was set aside to be decided by the AO based on additional evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds related to the reopening of the assessment. However, the ground concerning the addition of Rs. 25,00,000 was set aside to be decided by the AO based on additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the loss from NCDEX transactions prior to 27.11.2013 was speculative. However, it allowed the set-off of loss from agricultural commodity derivatives as non-speculative business loss, treating the second proviso to Section 43(5) as curative and retrospective. The disallowance of expenses was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her onus by filing documentary evidence like income tax returns, bank accounts, and gift deeds. The AO failed to conduct necessary investigations on these documents, and the CIT(A)'s rejection of the gifts based on societal norms was not sufficient. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate any mistake in the processing of the return under Section 143(1) or provide clear evidence for the depreciation claim. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The ITAT observed that the lower authorities had not decided the appeals on merits and had passed similar orders for both appeals. The Tribunal directed the NFAC to consider the assessee's submissions regarding indexation and Section 54 deduction and decide the issues in accordance with the law.

The ITAT observed that the lower authorities had not decided the appeals on merits and had passed similar orders for both appeals. The Tribunal directed the NFAC to consider the assessee's submissions regarding indexation and Section 54 deduction and decide the issues in accordance with the law.