ITAT Jaipur Judgments — April 2023

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was imposed beyond the prescribed time limit calculated from the completion of assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on prior period expenses and disallowance on delayed employee contributions. Regarding the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal followed jurisdictional High Court decisions and restored the AO's order, allowing the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on prior period expenses and disallowance on delayed employee contributions. Regarding the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal followed jurisdictional High Court decisions and restored the AO's order, allowing the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on prior period expenses and disallowance on delayed employee contributions. Regarding the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal followed jurisdictional High Court decisions and restored the AO's order, allowing the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF, if not deposited by the due date specified in the relevant Act, is not deductible. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was applied, stating that the due date under Section 36(1)(va) is crucial for deductibility.

The Tribunal held that if the sales recorded in the books of account are not proven to be wrong, then a separate addition for cash deposited into the bank account consequent to those sales is not warranted. The Tribunal vacated the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the delay in filing the appeal, as per Supreme Court directions. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the income of the companies cannot be taxed in the hands of Shri Sanjay Jain as he had resigned from M/s. SUMS Exim Pvt. Ltd. and was not a partner in M/s. S.M. Developers after a certain period. The protective additions were deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition related to the land purchase, finding that the set-off was permissible. The Tribunal also concurred with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, as the assessee had no exempt income.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of Nature Farm Development Expenses and the addition for fictitious current liabilities. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation and justification for these claims.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 of the Income Tax Act was defective because it did not specify the exact charge against the assessee. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were deemed invalid and void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was vitiated due to a gross violation of natural justice as the date of non-compliance was incorrectly stated as the date of the assessment order itself. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's NRI status and potential ignorance of procedural changes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's stand to treat securities transactions as capital gains should not be disputed. It also directed the AO to verify the nature of bank credits (FD maturity and reimbursements) and grant relief if found not taxable.

The tribunal condoned the delay of 162 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's reliance on professional advice and the need for a liberal approach in such matters. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s failure to consider the additional evidence and provide reasons for its non-admission violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide necessary details to the AO and CIT(A) regarding the capital expenditure. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal. The assessee failed to provide a justifiable reason for the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and also filed the appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 3 days without a condonation application.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause due to incorrect legal advice. It further held that the revisionary order under Section 263 was unwarranted as the Assessing Officer had made adequate inquiries and the PCIT's observations were general and lacked specific defects, thus the order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had justifiable reasons for not appearing before the CIT(A) and condoned the delay. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, subject to the assessee depositing costs.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had acted diligently and fulfilled all substantive conditions for the deduction. The delay in filing the procedural form should not lead to the denial of an otherwise eligible claim.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 4,18,48,000/- made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was unjustified and deserved to be deleted. The Tribunal found that the assessee had successfully proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with M/s Inner Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. The identity of the lender was established through its PAN, incorporation details, regular filing of financial statements with the Ministry of Company Affairs (MCA), and audited financial statements. The Tribunal noted that the non-service of the notice under section 133(6) could be due to various reasons like shifting of office. Regarding creditworthiness, the Tribunal observed that the lender company had substantial reserves and surplus (Rs. 36,36,39,628/-) compared to the loan advanced. The genuineness of the transaction was supported by the fact that the loan was given through banking channels, as evidenced by the lender's bank statements, and the assessee's name appeared in the lender's balance sheet under 'short term loans and advances'. The Tribunal also considered the fact that the same AO had accepted loans from the same lender in other group cases for the same assessment year, treating it as genuine and creditworthy, which created a contrary view. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's voluntary declaration of income and payment of taxes before the issuance of the reasons for escapement of income, coupled with the fact that the AO did not reject the offer or find it mala fide, meant the action was voluntary and not concealment. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were not justified as the assessee had already accounted for the expenses or made sufficient disclosures.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of revisionary powers under section 263 was unsustainable as the AO had conducted inquiries and reached a conclusion based on the material on record. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order.

The Tribunal condoned a one-day delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue of unexplained cash deposit to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present his case, with a direction to be cooperative and avoid frivolous adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the AO was duty-bound to restrict inquiries to the limited scrutiny issues. The PCIT could not expand the scope of inquiry beyond the original reasons for selection. The AO's assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that in cases of limited scrutiny, the AO is bound to restrict examination to the selected issues. The PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not sustainable as the issues raised were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee has offered the surrendered income in the return filed under Section 148 and paid the due tax, the mere non-inclusion of this income in the original return does not automatically lead to concealment. The penalty was vacated as the assessee had made a complete disclosure in the revised return.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices, considering the initial shift towards e-assessments and the assessee's reliance on others for technical compliance. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A should be calculated till the date the refund is actually granted, not just till the date of the assessment order. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on a previous High Court decision.

The ITAT held that the CPC lacked the power to make the adjustment disallowing the Section 80P deduction for AY 2019-20, as the relevant enabling provision came into effect later. The tribunal also noted that a deduction under Section 80P cannot be denied solely on the basis of late filing of the return.

The Tribunal held that the purchase of shares was not genuine, citing discrepancies in the transaction timeline, lack of proper sale bills, and the nature of the penny stock. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the LTCG claim.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was explained by prior withdrawals from the same bank account and past savings. Following CBDT guidelines and judicial precedents, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares and the consequent LTCG were not bogus. The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were deleted, relying on documentary evidence and jurisdictional High Court decisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the ex-parte nature of the lower authorities' orders and the assessee's explanation. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause. Considering the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard, considering the complexities and recent judicial pronouncements on the issue.

The Tribunal held that the Council's activities, which include developing, promoting, and regulating para-medical education, prescribing syllabi, conducting examinations, and granting registration, constitute charitable purposes under education. The receipts from examination fees, registration, and affiliation are incidental to these charitable activities.

The Tribunal held that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares and the consequent LTCG were not bogus. Relying on documentary evidence and judicial precedents, the Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).