ITAT Jaipur Judgments — June 2023

The Tribunal held that the primary issue was whether the sale deed executed by the assessee in favour of his daughter-in-law for Rs.3,00,000/- was a genuine sale or a gift. The assessee had filed an affidavit stating it was a gift and no consideration was received, and his daughter-in-law also filed an affidavit confirming this. The AO had not required the assessee to produce the daughter-in-law for cross-examination, and the affidavits were not controverted. Citing the Supreme Court in Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT and the ITAT Jaipur Bench in Kuldeep Chand Garg vs. ITO, the Tribunal held that the rejection of an affidavit is not justified unless the deponent is discredited or fails to produce supporting evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that no capital gain could be computed on the transaction with Smt. Asha Tambi, as it was a gift and not a sale. Consequently, Ground No. 1 was allowed. Grounds No. 2 and 3 were rendered infructuous as there was no capital gain to compute. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI deposited after the due date but before the due date of filing the return of income is to be disallowed as per Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that procedural rules are subservient to substantial justice and that denying justice based solely on technicalities like e-filing, when a manual appeal was filed within time, would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO under Section 68 were not justified as the prerequisite of sums being credited in the books of accounts was not fulfilled. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also deemed not applicable.

The Tribunal noted that the issues in the appeals were identical and common. Following the decision in a lead case, the Tribunal found that the assessment completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A was bad in law and void-ab-initio, as no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal noted that the issues in the appeals were identical and common. Following the decision in a lead case, the Tribunal found that the assessment completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A was bad in law and void-ab-initio, as no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked for undisclosed cash sales as they are not recorded in the books of accounts. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked for undisclosed cash sales as they are not recorded in the books of accounts. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked for undisclosed cash sales as they are not recorded in the books of accounts. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked for undisclosed cash sales as they are not recorded in the books of accounts. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked for undisclosed cash sales as they are not recorded in the books of accounts. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked for undisclosed cash sales as they are not recorded in the books of accounts. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked for undisclosed cash sales as they are not recorded in the books of accounts. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal found that the facts of the cases cited by the revenue were distinguishable from the present case. It upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,56,63,325/- made by the AO on account of cash sales during the pre-demonetization period.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO under Section 68 were not justified as the prerequisite of sums being credited in the books of accounts was not fulfilled. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also deemed not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO under Section 68 were not justified as the prerequisite of sums being credited in the books of accounts was not fulfilled. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also deemed not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO under Section 68 were not justified as the prerequisite of sums being credited in the books of accounts was not fulfilled. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also deemed not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO under Section 68 were not justified as the prerequisite of sums being credited in the books of accounts was not fulfilled. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also deemed not applicable.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that additions made under Section 68 were not justified as the sums were not credited in the assessee's books of accounts. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also held to be unjustified.

The Tribunal found that the facts of the cases cited by the revenue were distinguishable from the present case. It upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,56,63,325/- made by the AO on account of cash sales during the pre-demonetization period.

The Tribunal held that Section 143(3) empowers the AO to determine refunds due to the assessee. Distinguishing previous judgments, the Tribunal found the case of CIT vs. Vali Brothers applicable, stating that excess tax deposited by the assessee in the form of TDS and self-assessment tax deserves to be refunded.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (Exemptions) as the assessee failed to provide necessary documents to prove the genuineness of its activities and did not appear to pursue the appeal. The rejection of the registration application was found to be without infirmity.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity as the assessee neither appeared nor filed written submissions before the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed due to the assessee's continued non-responsiveness.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 115BBE was not justified as the additions made by the AO were not covered under Section 68. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) on most additions and found the telescoping of other additions to be reasonable.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked for undisclosed cash sales as they are not recorded in the books of accounts. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal noted that the issues in the appeals were identical and common. Following the decision in a lead case, the Tribunal found that the assessment completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A was bad in law and void-ab-initio, as no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO under Section 68 were not justified as the prerequisite of sums being credited in the books of accounts was not fulfilled. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also deemed not applicable.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that additions made under Section 68 were not justified as the sums were not credited in the assessee's books of accounts. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also held to be unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 115BBE was not justified as the additions made by the AO were not covered under Section 68. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) on most additions and found the telescoping of other additions to be reasonable.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked for undisclosed cash sales as they are not recorded in the books of accounts. Consequently, the invocation of Section 115BBE was also deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that Section 44AB is applicable to persons carrying on business or profession, and since the assessee was under a bona fide belief that its income was exempt and not involved in business, the penalty under Section 271B was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that while some purchases remained unverifiable, the addition should be restricted to the profit on sales corresponding to those purchases, applying the previous year's GP rate. The AO's reliance on certain case laws was distinguished.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of notice under Section 148 was justified, but restored the issue of rental income to the AO for verification of evidence. The Tribunal also directed the AO to re-examine the claims for deductions under Chapter VIA and TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO under Section 143(1) for late deposit of employee contributions to PF/ESI is valid, following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. The grounds related to the disallowance and the charging of interest were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was deprived of justice and was not given a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after affording another opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the amount was already taxed in the hands of Shri Babu Lal Jat and Shri Ram Karan Kulhari, the addition in the hands of the assessee was not justified. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was vacated.