ITAT Jaipur Judgments — May 2023

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to decide afresh, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to submit necessary documents without seeking frivolous adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of late deposit of employee's contribution towards EPF/ESI is applicable even when the return is processed under section 143(1). The decision of the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. is equally applicable to intimations framed under section 143(1).

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the statutory time limit, making it invalid and the assessment proceedings null and void. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs Hotel Blue Moon.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had made investments in construction of a new house within the stipulated period and that the 'full value of consideration' for Section 54F purposes refers to the actual sale consideration received, not the stamp duty value. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had complied with the substantive provisions of Section 54F.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 50C, which allows for the stamp valuation on the date of agreement to be considered if payment is received on or before the agreement date, was not applicable. This was because the part payment was received after the oral agreement date, violating the conditions of the proviso. The sale of the depreciable asset was also upheld as a short-term capital asset.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities to the assessee, but no submissions were made. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was based on the AO's findings after the assessee failed to provide necessary documentation.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of PF and ESI payments made after the due date under the respective Acts, even if paid before the return filing due date, is correct. The ratio of the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is applicable to intimation processed under Section 143(1).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity of hearing at the first appellate stage. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after giving the assessee a hearing.

The Tribunal held that employee's contributions to PF/ESI, if not deposited by the due date as per Section 36(1)(va), cannot be allowed as a deduction. This decision follows the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is applicable to assessments processed under Section 143(1) as well. Therefore, the disallowance for belated payment of employee contributions to PF and ESI is sustained.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's adjournment applications and submissions. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's adjournment applications and submissions. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's AR provided a bifurcation showing that the disallowed amount of Rs. 16,62,178/- included employer's contribution, which should not have been disallowed under Section 36(1)(va). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the AO for fresh calculation.

The Tribunal held that in search cases, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions or re-assessments based on other material for completed assessments if no incriminating material is found during the search. The jurisdictional requirement of Section 153A was not satisfied.

The Tribunal held that in search cases, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions or re-assessments based on other material for completed assessments if no incriminating material is found during the search. The jurisdictional requirement of Section 153A was not satisfied.

The Tribunal held that there is a clear distinction between employer's contribution and employee's contribution. Employee's contribution, if not deposited by the due date, is deemed income and deduction is not allowed as per Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was followed.

The Tribunal held that there is a clear distinction between employer's contribution and employee's contribution. Employee's contribution, if not deposited by the due date, is deemed income and deduction is not allowed as per Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was followed.

The Tribunal held that there is a clear distinction between employer's contribution and employee's contribution. Employee's contribution, if not deposited by the due date, is deemed income and deduction is not allowed as per Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was followed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not adjudicate the assessee's reply on merit and passed an order without adhering to principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that in search cases, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions or re-assessments based on other material for completed assessments if no incriminating material is found during the search. The jurisdictional requirement of Section 153A was not satisfied.

The Tribunal held that in search cases, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions or re-assessments based on other material for completed assessments if no incriminating material is found during the search. The jurisdictional requirement of Section 153A was not satisfied.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the assessee is a teacher with regular salary income and that the cash deposits were claimed to be from the sale of buffalos. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' findings were not clear and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO under Section 92CA was invalid and bad in law due to the omission of clause (i) of Section 92BA by the Finance Act, 2017, without a saving clause. Consequently, the consequential orders and additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO under Section 92CA was invalid and bad in law due to the omission of clause (i) of Section 92BA by the Finance Act, 2017, without a saving clause. Consequently, the consequential orders and additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that employees of Public Sector Undertakings are not considered State Government employees for the purpose of exemption under Section 10(10AA)(i). The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is equally applicable to intimations processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) is sustained.

The Tribunal held that interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is to be treated as 'income from other sources' and not under the head 'capital gains'. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's order regarding exclusion of the COVID-19 period for limitation. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice. It admitted additional evidence regarding PAN numbers of payees and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice. It admitted additional evidence regarding PAN numbers of payees and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice. It admitted additional evidence regarding PAN numbers of payees and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice. It admitted additional evidence regarding PAN numbers of payees and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice. It admitted additional evidence regarding PAN numbers of payees and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice. It admitted additional evidence regarding PAN numbers of payees and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice. It admitted additional evidence regarding PAN numbers of payees and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice. It admitted additional evidence regarding PAN numbers of payees and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that as per the existing provisions and notifications, the exemption limit for leave encashment for private employees is Rs. 3,00,000. While acknowledging potential future changes, the current limit must be applied.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. While noting the assessee's lethargy, the Tribunal restored the case to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the addition confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and relied on previous decisions regarding late deposit of employee contributions.

The Tribunal held that while Section 271C mandates penalty, Section 273B allows for exceptions if reasonable cause is shown. The assessee's argument of ignorance of the newly introduced Section 194IA was not accepted as a valid reasonable cause, and the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the opening cash balance of Rs. 2 lacs and the cash belonging to the assessee's brother, Shri Tikshan Jangam, should be considered as explained. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted to this extent.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice. It admitted additional evidence regarding PAN numbers of payees and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice. It admitted additional evidence regarding PAN numbers of payees and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice. It admitted additional evidence regarding PAN numbers of payees and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory. Not allowing FTC due to delayed filing of Form 67 was considered a mistake apparent on record.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for delayed deposit of employee's PF/ESI contributions is no longer debatable after the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. The action of the AO in passing an order under Section 154 was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to record specific satisfaction regarding the furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Furthermore, the additions were made on estimation, which does not attract penalty.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock represented business income and not undisclosed investment. Therefore, it should be taxed under normal provisions of the Act, not under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding the due dates for employees' contribution, is applicable from AY 2021-22 and not for the year under consideration. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT.