Loading ITAT cases…
1,522 tribunal orders from the Jaipur bench in 2025.
Showing 40 of 1,522 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposit as being from cash sales, supported by books of accounts and VAT returns. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction to reopen the case for AY 2013-14 was invalid as the information available did not pertain to the impugned year. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case qualified as 'underreporting of income' under Section 270A(2)(a) of the Act, as the assessed income exceeded the income processed. The assessee's contention that the addition was on an estimation basis and thus not liable for penalty was rejected.
The Tribunal restored the issue of long-term capital gains to the AO for verification of exemption under Section 10(37), as the claim was raised for the first time. The issue of cash deposits was also restored to the AO for fresh consideration due to non-adjudication by the lower authorities. The denial of Section 80C deduction was restored to the AO for making necessary inquiries from the employer.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case qualified as 'underreporting of income' under Section 270A(2)(a) of the Act, as the assessed income exceeded the income processed. The assessee's contention that the addition was on an estimation basis and thus not liable for penalty was rejected.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to participate in assessment proceedings and presented the claim of denial of the bank account for the first time before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) should have facilitated the assessee in bringing on record material to support his plea. Therefore, the appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10BB is a procedural requirement and not a mandatory condition for claiming exemption under Section 11. As long as the form is filed and available during assessment proceedings, the delay should not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that both appeals were filed with a delay of 47 days and the assessee failed to appear during multiple hearings, nor did they submit any adjournment requests or reasons for the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal did not condone the delay and dismissed both appeals as non-maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and no sufficient cause was provided for the delay. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Pathapati Subba Reddy, the Tribunal found no justification to condone the delay.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that both appeals were filed with a delay of 47 days and the assessee failed to appear during multiple hearings, nor did they submit any adjournment requests or reasons for the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal did not condone the delay and dismissed both appeals as non-maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and no sufficient cause was provided for the delay. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Pathapati Subba Reddy, the Tribunal found no justification to condone the delay.
The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of the deduction claim, without demonstrating its bona fides, constituted underreporting of income. The Tribunal also found that the AO had clearly specified the charge of misrepresentation or suppression of facts under Section 270A(9)(a) in the assessment order and penalty notice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in setting aside the assessment order as the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to explain the source of funds, which were inter-firm transfers. The movement of funds through the assessee's account did not render them unexplained.
The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure incurred on a loan for acquiring a capital asset, which was not used for business purposes during the assessment year, is not allowable under Section 36(1)(iii). However, it is allowable under Section 24(b) as 'Income from House Property'.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer accepted the appellant's submissions in entirety in the subsequent assessment order, making the present appeal infructuous. The Ld. DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that since a co-ordinate bench had already deleted the addition of Rs. 3,96,05,000/- in a prior appeal (ITA No. 587/JP/2024), the subsequent rectification to apply a higher tax rate was unjustified. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order setting aside the rectification was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were indeed passed beyond the period of limitation as stipulated under Section 275(1) of the Act. Therefore, the ITAT found no illegality in the orders of the CIT(A) which had set aside the penalty orders.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders passed under Sections 271D and 271E were indeed barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria Brothers, which was also relied upon by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders were passed on 29.03.2024, and according to the ratio of Hissaria Brothers, the penalty orders should have been passed by 30.09.2024. Since the penalty orders were passed on 23.12.2024, they were beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s orders setting aside the penalty orders on this ground. Consequently, all four appeals filed by the department were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not committed any illegality in setting aside the penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer. The primary reason for the CIT(A)'s decision was that the penalty orders were passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The Tribunal, in its reasoning, referred to Section 271D, Section 271E, and Section 275(1) of the Act. Crucially, the Tribunal relied on the decision in the case of Hissaria Brothers (supra), which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. This precedent established that penalty proceedings under Sections 271D and 271E are independent of assessment proceedings and that the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) applies. Since the Revenue did not present any counter-arguments or opposing precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings. Therefore, all four appeals filed by the department were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not committed any illegality in setting aside the penalty orders passed under Sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary reason for the CIT(A)'s decision was that the penalty orders were passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Hissaria Brothers, which held that the relevant date for determining the limitation period for penalties under Sections 271D and 271E is the date of the assessment order. The CIT(A) observed that the assessment orders were passed on March 29, 2024, and therefore, the penalty orders should have been passed by September 30, 2024. Since the penalty orders were passed on December 23, 2024, they were indeed barred by limitation. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings, especially as the revenue offered no arguments to the contrary. Consequently, the appeals filed by the department were dismissed.
The Tribunal decided to delete the addition of Rs. 14,10,000/- made by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted a cash book for the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, which showed a cash balance of Rs. 5,26,882/- as on 01.10.2016, increasing to Rs. 9,85,275/- as on 01.11.2016 due to cash sales. Further sales from 01.11.2016 to 10.11.2016 accumulated sufficient cash for the deposit of Rs. 14,10,000/- on 11.11.2016. The Tribunal found that the assessee maintained day-to-day sales accounts establishing cash sales. The CIT(A) had not appreciated this fact. The Tribunal also considered that the trading account and sales, including cash sales, were accepted by the AO, and the gross profit was taxed. Accepting the cash sales as the source of the deposit was therefore justified, and treating the deposit as unexplained would lead to double taxation. The GST returns filed by the assessee were also accepted by the GST Department. Therefore, the source of the cash deposit was held to be fully explained. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 14,10,000/-. Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee was allowed. Ground No. 3 was consequential. Grounds 1 and additional grounds 1 to 5 were rendered academic as the appeal was decided on facts. The operative direction was the deletion of the addition.
The tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were quashed by the Rajasthan High Court in a similar case, as the AO should have proceeded under Section 153C when seized material related to a third party. Consequently, the assessment order became ineffective.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the purchases, including bills, transport receipts, and bank payments. The subsequent sales were also accepted. The Tribunal noted that the non-compliance of the supplier with a notice under section 133(6) cannot be the sole basis for disallowing the assessee's purchases, especially when the assessee has fulfilled other requirements.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) inadvertently considered the application for Section 80G approval as an application for registration under Section 12AB, which was an issue not before him, and thus the observation was without jurisdiction. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was already granted registration under Section 12AB, and the issue of its cancellation was not raised. The CIT(E), realizing the mistake, issued a revised order on 03.04.2025, rejecting the Section 80G application and cancelling the provisional approval. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not confronted with the specific issues pertaining to the Section 80G application on its merits. Therefore, even though the assessee had filed detailed submissions on merits, the Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not deal with the Section 80G application properly. Consequently, the matter was set aside to the file of the CIT(E) to decide the application afresh in accordance with the law, without prejudice to past events. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute. The appeal in ITA No. 779/JPR/2025 was allowed by quashing the Section 154 order, and the appeal in ITA No. 118/JPR/2025 was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application solely on the ground of non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, as this was not a mandatory requirement for 80G registration. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision stating that absence of such registration does not render the application untenable.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from deposits with Kota Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Kota Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's counsel did not attempt to distinguish the decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (SC), relied upon by the Learned CIT(A), nor did they refer to any material suggesting that the two cooperative banks were engaged in lending money to the general public as their banking business. The Tribunal found that the Learned CIT(A) rightly observed that the interest income was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Learned CIT(A) and allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable. This was because the Revenue subsequently issued notices under Section 153C of the Act after the CIT(A)'s order, thereby accepting the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal relied on the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal's case.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable. This was because the Revenue subsequently issued notices under Section 153C of the Act after the CIT(A)'s order, thereby accepting the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal relied on the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal's case.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim regarding the purchase of land and the non-attraction of Section 56(2) warranted further examination. The Tribunal also noted issues with the communication of the remand report to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 65,63,180/- on account of LTCG. The Tribunal found no merit in the CIT(A)'s reliance on the Vigyan Lodha case without properly discussing the facts of the present case. The Tribunal noted that the AO had initiated proceedings based on information received and data available, and there was no requirement for cross-examination of witnesses. The Tribunal concluded that the LTCG claim was based on sham transactions and thus the addition was justified. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 1,42,604/- on account of commission paid for arranging accommodation entry for LTCG was also sustained, as it was consequential to the main addition. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) regarding these two additions. The judgment does not explicitly detail the findings on the STCG and its related commission, but the overall result indicates a partial allowance for the Revenue, implying these additions might also be revisited or sustained. The Tribunal ordered the Assessing Officer to make re-calculations in accordance with the decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the addition of Rs. 48,38,133/- on account of Sundry Creditors, the Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly directed its deletion. The Tribunal noted that the majority of the outstanding amount related to NHAI and RSRDC, and the rest was paid off. It found no reason why the AO was not convinced by the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal cited the Special Bench decision in Manoj Agarwal v/s DCIT, [2008] 113 ITD 377 (Delhi), to emphasize that trade payables or outstanding liabilities are generally not covered under Section 68 when the purchase is accepted as genuine. The AO had not recorded any finding that the liability represented a cash credit or was non-genuine. The Tribunal also held that the CIT(A)'s power is co-terminus with the AO's, and no adverse view could be taken regarding the acceptance of additional evidence, as the CIT(A) considered the overall material on record. The judgment does not explicitly detail the findings on the other three grounds (Toll Equipment expenditure, Toll expenses, and unexplained cash credit), but the overall result indicates they were also decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the prior approval for reopening the assessment was not obtained from the specified authority as required by Section 151 of the Act, given that the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable. This was because the Revenue subsequently issued notices under Section 153C of the Act after the CIT(A)'s order, thereby accepting the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal relied on the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal's case.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable. This was because the Revenue subsequently issued notices under Section 153C of the Act after the CIT(A)'s order, thereby accepting the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal relied on the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal's case.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable. This was because the Revenue subsequently issued notices under Section 153C of the Act after the CIT(A)'s order, thereby accepting the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal relied on the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal's case.
The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition. The assessee's cross-objection was partly allowed, directing the addition to be restricted to 0.56% based on the average gross profit of the last three years.
The Tribunal quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary reason for quashing was the lack of proper application of mind and satisfaction by the competent authorities for granting approval to reopen the case, as required under Section 151 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the approval from the Principal CIT was a consolidated approval for 56 different assessees in one letter, which was not even signed by the Principal CIT but by an ITO (T&J), who was not a competent authority. Furthermore, the approval was found to be in photocopy, and the assessee's name was not even ticked in the approval list, raising doubts about whether the approval was obtained before the issue of the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal relied on decisions in Pr. CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd. and CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. to hold that the reopening was unsustainable due to procedural irregularities and violation of Section 151. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 and the assessment order passed were held to be null and void. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order of the CIT(A) was quashed. Other grounds were not adjudicated as the proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made without invoking specific provisions of the Income Tax Act. The AO failed to cite any section under which the addition was made, rendering it invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to file an application for condonation of delay and did not provide any sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable. The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as it was barred by limitation.