ITAT Jaipur Judgments — June 2023

The Tribunal held that the transactions for purchase and sale of shares were conducted through banking channels via a SEBI-registered broker, and Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was paid. Therefore, the disallowance of capital loss and the addition for commission were not justified.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were void ab initio. The Tribunal found that the reopening was based on a change of opinion and borrowed satisfaction without proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the period of delay for calculating interest on late TDS deposit should be considered as 5 months, not 6 months, following judicial precedents. The AO was directed to re-compute the interest accordingly.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The issues were restored to the AO for adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is applicable to intimation under Section 143(1) as well. Therefore, the delayed deposit of employee contributions to PF/ESI leads to disallowance.

The Tribunal held that no TDS is required to be deducted on pure reimbursement of expenses where there is no profit element and sufficient supporting documents are provided. The lower authorities erred in not accepting the assessee's contention.

The Tribunal held that no TDS is required to be deducted on pure reimbursement of expenses where there is no profit element and sufficient supporting documents are provided. The lower authorities erred in not accepting the assessee's contention.

The Tribunal held that no TDS is required to be deducted on pure reimbursement of expenses where there is no profit element and sufficient supporting documents are provided. The lower authorities erred in not accepting the assessee's contention.

The Tribunal held that no TDS is required to be deducted on pure reimbursement of expenses where there is no profit element and sufficient supporting documents are provided. The lower authorities erred in not accepting the assessee's contention.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had previously deleted the addition made under Section 54F. Based on this, the Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable as the underlying addition was deleted.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lethargy in pursuing the case but felt an opportunity was missed. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It held that the agricultural income should be considered at Rs. 3,00,000/- as a fair estimation. For the bank deposits, a significant portion of the addition was deleted based on the AO's remand report which accepted the explained sources.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts and the addition made by the AO. The assessee failed to produce books of accounts and supporting vouchers even before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made necessary inquiries and considered the assessee's reply regarding Section 14A. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as the AO's assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on late payment of service tax is compensatory in nature and not penal. Therefore, it is an allowable expense under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

The tribunal held that the penalty notice was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that no TDS is required to be deducted on pure reimbursement of expenses where there is no profit element and sufficient supporting documents are provided. The lower authorities erred in not accepting the assessee's contention.

The Tribunal held that no TDS is required to be deducted on pure reimbursement of expenses where there is no profit element and sufficient supporting documents are provided. The lower authorities erred in not accepting the assessee's contention.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion without any new material, and the issue was already examined in the original assessment. Therefore, the reopening notice was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the rectification order passed under Section 154 was premature and factually incorrect because the ITAT order classifying the assessee as a 'Kachcha Arhatia' was not in existence at the time of rectification. Therefore, there was no apparent mistake to warrant rectification.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as they were based on a change of opinion without any new material or allegation of suppression of facts. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the Gross Profit (GP) rate at 8% and to delete the addition on account of salary payable. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning, especially considering the acceptance of a similar GP rate in a prior assessment year and the documentary evidence provided for the salary payment.

The Tribunal held that no TDS is required to be deducted on pure reimbursement of expenses where there is no profit element and sufficient supporting documents are provided. The lower authorities erred in not accepting the assessee's contention.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's directions on limitation periods. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the matter afresh, providing one more opportunity for hearing. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had revised the limit for deduction under Section 10(10AA) to Rs. 25,00,000/-. Since the assessee's claim was below this revised limit, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the full exemption.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions. The assessment was completed without proper service of notices.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, accepting the 8% profit estimation but directing verification of statutory deductions. The grounds related to house property loss and Chapter VIA deduction were remitted to the AO for adjudication.

The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the matter afresh, providing one more opportunity for hearing. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to present all facts and participate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed capital used for acquisition of property, including subsequent loans taken to repay initial loans from directors/relatives, should be allowed as part of the cost of acquisition.

The Tribunal observed the assessee's lethargy in pursuing the case despite opportunities. However, considering the assessee's health issues and to provide a fair chance, the appeals were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide proof that the impugned transactions belonged to the assessee and that the assessee had not traded in the penny stock mentioned. Consequently, the additions made under Section 68 were not justified.

The ITAT condoned the delay of 872 days, considering the affidavit filed by the Chartered Accountant explaining the oversight. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the surrendered income, being a land advance, did not qualify as 'undisclosed income' as defined under Section 271AAB. The penalty was levied without specifying which limb of Section 271AAB was invoked, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee co-operative society on its surplus funds deposited with Malviya Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. is inextricably linked with its business of providing credit facilities to its members. Therefore, it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that recent Supreme Court decisions, including the one in The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 17, Mumbai vs. M/s. Annasaheb Patil Mathadi Kamgar Sahakari Pathpedi Limited, have consistently held that such credit societies are entitled to exemption under Section 80P(2), and Section 80P(4) is not applicable. The Tribunal reasoned that merely giving credit to its members does not make a credit society a 'Co-operative Bank' under the Banking Regulation Act. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of Rs. 31,70,144 under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on the interest income earned by the assessee society on its deposits with the co-operative bank. The appeals for both assessment years were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in finding the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to the AO's lack of proper verification and appreciation of facts. The assessee's additional evidence was not produced before the AO.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee co-operative society on its surplus funds deposited with Malviya Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. is inextricably linked with its business of providing credit facilities to its members. Therefore, it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that recent Supreme Court decisions, including the one in The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 17, Mumbai vs. M/s. Annasaheb Patil Mathadi Kamgar Sahakari Pathpedi Limited, have consistently held that such credit societies are entitled to exemption under Section 80P(2), and Section 80P(4) is not applicable. The Tribunal reasoned that merely giving credit to its members does not make a credit society a 'Co-operative Bank' under the Banking Regulation Act. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of Rs. 31,70,144 under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on the interest income earned by the assessee society on its deposits with the co-operative bank. The appeals for both assessment years were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) NFAC's dismissal of the condonation of delay application was against the principles of natural justice as it was not a speaking order. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 23 days and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication in the interest of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's age and lack of email knowledge. However, it deprecated the assessee's non-compliance with notices.

The Tribunal held that one of the payees was not a relative as per Section 2(41) of the Act. It also noted that TDS was deducted on the interest payments and that the borrowed funds were not proven to be used for non-business purposes. Therefore, the disallowance was vacated.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had examined the issue of deduction under Section 80IA and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) NFAC's rejection of the rectification application was unjustified as the necessary documents were already on record. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the accumulation of income under Section 11(2).

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is sustainable. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is applicable even for assessments processed under Section 143(1).

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case. It also noted that the Assessing Officer had not adequately dealt with the assessee's explanations regarding the source of cash. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was deprived of contesting the case before the lower authorities due to non-appearance. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for a fresh decision, providing one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that an appeal filed against a deceased assessee is not maintainable. However, it allowed the revenue to substitute the deceased assessee with the legal heir and condoned the delay in filing the revised appeal.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide the reasons for reopening the assessment despite a specific request from the assessee, violating the principles laid down by the Apex Court. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 12/2016, if a bad debt is written off in the assessee's books, it fulfills the conditions for deduction, and no further proof of irrecoverability is required. The addition sustained by the lower authorities was vacated.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal. It held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable as the assessee was acting as a Power of Attorney holder and not the owner of the property. The Tribunal also noted that the quantum appeal was pending.