ITAT Jaipur Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

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 the addition made by the AO under Section 69 was incorrect as the CIT(A) himself admitted its inapplicability. Without independent corroborative evidence, the revenue could not sustain the addition, especially when the AO had considered it as expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity to rectify the defect and against the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was lethargic in pursuing the case and that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal based on a misunderstanding of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme applicability. The matter was therefore remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a proper adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lethargy but, considering the firm was closed and to provide one chance to argue the merits, set aside the issue to the file of the AO. The assessee was cautioned against seeking frivolous adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions as the assessee's explanations were supported by evidence and the Assessing Officer failed to controvert them, particularly regarding the addition of five zeroes without basis.

The Tribunal noted that the issue raised by the Revenue had already been decided on merits in the assessee's appeal. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was considered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the AO's shift from taxing commission to estimating gross profit as a marble trader was without basis, especially since the assessee lacked the infrastructure for marble trading. The Tribunal found no infirmity in taxing the income on commission, but disallowed the assessee's claim for 25% expenses without evidence.

The Tribunal restored the issue of cash deposits to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide all documentary evidence. The Tribunal also noted that if the cash deposit is taxable, the rate under Section 115BBE should be 30% for the period prior to December 15, 2016.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing technical glitches and the need for substantial justice. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to cure the defects pointed out, without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that Section 292B of the Income Tax Act does not empower the Assessing Officer to correct a jurisdictional defect, such as an incorrect assessment year in a notice under Section 148. Therefore, the assessment made without a valid notice for the correct assessment year is void.

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

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 for filing appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing technical glitches and the need for a liberal approach in the interest of justice. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to cure the defects pointed out.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the CIT(A) had rightly dealt with the matter. The deletion of additions made by the AO was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without adhering to mandatory procedural requirements, including the issuance of a proper notice under Section 143(2) and a specific show-cause notice before making additions. The Tribunal also found issues with the calculation of capital gains and the application of the price inflation index.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on the ground of delay in filing Form 10AB was not justified, especially when the assessee had obtained registration under Section 12A. The Tribunal noted that procedural defects should not defeat substantive justice and that the amended provisions of Section 80G(5) might offer relief.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 14,18,000/- on account of cash deposits was not sustainable as the AO did not consider the evidence placed on record. The Tribunal also held that the addition of Rs. 9,43,028/- on account of estimated turnover was beyond the scope of limited scrutiny and proper procedure was not followed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention of not being provided adequate opportunity and decided to restore the matter back to the CIT(E). The assessee was directed to produce all relevant papers to contest the case before the CIT(E).

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of brokerage expenses. It agreed with the lower authorities that the claim lacked independent evidence, was paid in cash, and the timing of receipts was suspicious, especially given the assessee's involvement with the buyer company.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not claimed any loss of Rs. 3,30,056/-, which was the basis of the addition by the AO. The Revenue did not controvert the assessee's submission and affidavit on this point.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bona fide and reasonable cause for not deducting TDS, especially since the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) resulted in a revenue-neutral situation. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were based on estimation. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal found that penalty cannot be levied solely on estimated additions without positive evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the reasons for rejection were curable and the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E). The Tribunal did not go into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted relevant inquiries and applied its mind to the facts on record. The PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was found to be unsustainable as it was based on a change of opinion and lacked proper material to deem the assessment order erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the reasons for rejection were curable and the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E). The Tribunal did not go into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, which disallows depreciation on assets treated as application of income, is prospective. Therefore, for assessment years prior to its effective date, depreciation can be claimed.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, which disallows depreciation on assets treated as application of income, is prospective. Therefore, for assessment years prior to its effective date, depreciation can be claimed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was deprived of justice as the appeal was dismissed without a proper opportunity of being heard. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the rental income from Australian properties is taxable in India, even though tax was paid in Australia. The Tribunal relied on Section 90(3) of the Income Tax Act and the principle that the DTAA does not prevent taxation in the resident state if the income is also taxable in the source state.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance. It decided that the assessee should be heard on merits rather than dismissing the appeal on technical grounds.