ITAT Jaipur Judgments — October 2023

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was deprived of a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to a communication oversight. Therefore, the case was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a procedural requirement and not mandatory for claiming FTC. The assessee has a vested right to claim FTC under the tax treaty, which cannot be disallowed for mere procedural delays.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard on merits, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was deprived of a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to a communication oversight. Therefore, the case was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the cost of construction should be determined using State PWD rates instead of CPWD rates and allowed a deduction for self-supervision. It also directed that any difference in cost should be spread proportionally over the years of construction to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the full exemption claimed for leave encashment as the limit under Section 10(10AA)(ii) has been increased to Rs. 25,00,000/-. The earlier restriction by the lower authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 831 days in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard on the merits of the penalty.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It upheld the validity of the assessment under Section 153C, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. Regarding the cash deposits, the Tribunal deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had successfully discharged his onus by explaining the sources of the cash deposits.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters back to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case and file necessary documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for the quantum appeal, and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The penalty appeal was rendered infructuous. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for the quantum appeal, and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The penalty appeal was rendered infructuous. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case and file necessary documents.

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, subject to a cost imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case and submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case and file necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases might be tainted, estimating profit at 25% was excessive. Considering the nature of the diamond business and the assessee's disclosed profit margin, the Tribunal reduced the estimated profit.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters back to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case and file necessary documents.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s finding that the amount was a loan and not a gift, based on the verification of the capital account.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80G cannot be denied solely because the payment was part of CSR expenditure. The Tribunal noted that Section 80G(2)(iiihk) and (iiihl) specifically mention eligible contributions, and the denial by the lower authorities was not based on verifying the nature and eligibility of the payments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for the quantum appeal, and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The penalty appeal was rendered infructuous. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.

The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance of common expenses to 5% of the total expenses, partly allowing the appeal on this ground. However, the CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of unexplained sundry creditors, dismissing the appeal on this ground. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 139(9) declaring the return invalid was based on a mistake of law, as the assessee's gross receipts were below the threshold for mandatory audit under Section 44AB. Therefore, the defect notice was not in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been given multiple opportunities but had not fully complied, submitting some documents without written submissions. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for lack of proper explanation. The Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case and file necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not claimed any long-term capital gains under Section 10(38), the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C were not sustainable. The Tribunal also allowed the set-off of brought forward losses against speculation profit.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147 without proper notice and that the assessee's role as a confirming party without receiving consideration was not adequately considered. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also questioned due to procedural lapses.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147 without proper notice and that the assessee's role as a confirming party without receiving consideration was not adequately considered. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also questioned due to procedural lapses.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a procedural requirement and not mandatory for claiming foreign tax credit. The delay in filing Form 67 does not extinguish the substantive right to claim credit under a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The Tribunal found force in the assessee's arguments and the evidence placed on record. It held that the date of the agreement to sell should be taken for the purpose of computing the full value of consideration for the transfer of capital assets. The Tribunal reasoned that the stamp duty rate at the time of the agreement to sell should prevail over the DLC rate on the date of transfer. This decision was based on respectfully following the ratio of the judicial precedent cited and relied upon, specifically the case of Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. ACIT (2016) 142 DTR 62, which discussed the retrospective effect of amendments to Section 50C and the adoption of stamp duty valuation as on the date of agreement. The Tribunal directed the AO to take appropriate evidence of the DLC rate from the assessee and grant consequential relief. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's order did not clearly specify the charge for penalty and that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte. The matter was remanded back to the AO to consider the merits of the case and the evidence presented by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities. The matter was set aside to the AO for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to illness. It found merit in the assessee's grievance regarding lack of proper opportunity and notice from the CIT(A).

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for condonation of delay and accepted additional evidence. The issue was restored to the AO for verification of TDS deduction, considering past favorable orders for the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the cost of improvement due to lack of substantiation. However, it allowed the claim for deduction under Section 54, setting aside the matter to the AO to consider it afresh, as the appellate authority is not bound by the restriction applied by the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing technical glitches on the portal and the curable nature of the defects. It held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present the required documents to the CIT(E).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing technical glitches on the portal and the curable nature of the defects. It held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present the required documents to the CIT(E).

The Tribunal noted that the AO's order did not clearly specify the charge for penalty and that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte. The matter was remanded back to the AO to consider the merits of the case and the evidence presented by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities' orders were ex-parte and the assessee intended to explain the source of the deposit. Therefore, the case was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. It held that the assessee must be provided an adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(E) before a decision on the registration application is made.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the ground related to Section 43B and direct the AO to call for details was based on the assessee not placing relevant information on record. Therefore, this additional ground was dismissed. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible if no exempt income is earned. However, interest on delayed TDS payment is not an allowable expenditure as it arises from a violation of law.

The Tribunal held that since the returned income was accepted by the AO during reassessment proceedings and there were no additions made, there was no concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the lower authorities dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance, the assessee must be given an adequate opportunity to be heard. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. It held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E) for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals. On the issue of bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) under section 10(38), the Tribunal noted that the AO's addition was based on suspicion and surmises without cogent material. The assessee had provided relevant material to substantiate the genuineness of share transactions. Relying on the decisions in CIT vs. Pooja Agarwal and PCIT vs. Pramod Jain & Others, and considering the documentary evidence produced by the assessee and the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal allowed the claim of exemption under section 10(38) and deleted the addition. Consequently, the addition on account of notional commission paid under section 69C was also deleted as it was consequential. Regarding the addition under section 14A, the Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not brought any material to controvert the assessee's submission that no administrative expenses were incurred for earning the exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance under section 14A was also deleted. The CIT(A)'s orders were set aside for both assessment years.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was permitted to accept demonetized currency and that sales were not disputed. However, the AO had not received a complete stock register. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify the sales against the cash deposits with proper documentary evidence, including stock records.