ITAT Jaipur Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal noted that a primary reason for the rejection of the Section 12AB registration was the assessee's lack of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, as of the application date. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had since applied for and obtained registration under the RPT Act. Considering this, the Tribunal found the reasons for rejection to be curable. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter of Section 12AB registration to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, to be decided based on the assessee producing the RPT Act registration. Similarly, the recognition under Section 80G was denied solely due to the rejection of the 12AB registration. Since the 12AB matter was being restored, the Tribunal also restored the 80G recognition matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal clarified that this restoration was for statistical purposes and did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the dispute, which the CIT(E) would adjudicate independently.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had previously taken a view that registration under the RPT Act is not enforceable once registered under the Companies Act as a charitable entity. Considering this and the Supreme Court's observations on granting registration based on stated objectives, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to re-decide the issue of registration under Section 12AB afresh. Consequently, the rejection of recognition under Section 80G was also set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had previously taken a view that registration under the RPT Act is not enforceable once registered under the Companies Act as a charitable entity. Considering this and the Supreme Court's observations on granting registration based on stated objectives, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to re-decide the issue of registration under Section 12AB afresh. Consequently, the rejection of recognition under Section 80G was also set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had previously taken a view that registration under the RPT Act is not enforceable once registered under the Companies Act as a charitable entity. Considering this and the Supreme Court's observations on granting registration based on stated objectives, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to re-decide the issue of registration under Section 12AB afresh. Consequently, the rejection of recognition under Section 80G was also set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the reason for rejection (lack of registration under RPT Act) was curable. Since the assessee had since applied for RPT Act registration, the Tribunal restored both matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after the assessee produces proof of RPT Act registration.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had previously taken a view that registration under the RPT Act is not enforceable once registered under the Companies Act as a charitable entity. Considering this and the Supreme Court's observations on granting registration based on stated objectives, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to re-decide the issue of registration under Section 12AB afresh. Consequently, the rejection of recognition under Section 80G was also set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the reason for rejection (lack of registration under RPT Act) was curable. Since the assessee had since applied for RPT Act registration, the Tribunal restored both matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after the assessee produces proof of RPT Act registration.

The Tribunal noted that the primary reason for rejecting the Section 12AB registration was the assessee's lack of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, as of the application date. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee has since obtained this registration. Considering these facts, the Tribunal found the reasons for rejection to be curable. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter of Section 12AB registration to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, to be decided based on the assessee producing the RPT Act registration. Similarly, since the Section 80G recognition was denied solely because of the Section 12AB rejection, the Tribunal also restored the matter of Section 80G recognition to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which will be adjudicated independently by the CIT(E).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to the deposit of costs, and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was also directed to appear before the CIT(A) for further proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application to withdraw the appeal, as they intended to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus by providing purchase invoices and confirmations from suppliers, which were verified. The valuation at market price by the valuer was considered inappropriate, and the stock should have been valued at cost.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application to withdraw the appeal as they intended to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 274 of the Act was defective because it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) (concealed income or inaccurate particulars) was violated by the assessee, thus prejudicing the assessee's right to defend himself.

The Tribunal allowed both grounds of appeal. Regarding Ground No. 1, the Tribunal noted that the AO did not question other cash deposits totaling Rs. 21,40,26,200/- made between April 1, 2016, and November 8, 2016, based on opening cash balances, royalty collections, and outgoings. The Tribunal found no independent evidence to establish that the Rs. 49,00,000/- deposit was unaccounted or represented unexplained income. It held that the revenue could not accept part of the sales as explained and part as unexplained from the same evidence. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 68 is not applicable to sale transactions already recorded in the profit and loss account. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was deleted. Regarding Ground No. 2, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had interest-free funds (share capital, reserves, and surplus) exceeding Rs. 24 Crores, which was substantially more than the interest-free advances of Rs. 3.63 Crores. The AO failed to establish a nexus between interest-bearing funds and non-interest-bearing lending. The Tribunal concluded that when interest-free funds exceed interest-free advances, no disallowance of interest can be made. The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that there was no undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 271AAB that was either admitted by the assessee or determined by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the assessment. The Tribunal noted that the assessee offered the surrendered income as current year's business income to avoid prolonged litigation, and the AO accepted it as such without determining it as income from other sources under Section 69. The Tribunal found that the department had not found any evidence of unaccounted purchases/sales or sources of undisclosed income during the search. It also referred to Board Circulars expressing concern about confessions of additional income during search and seizure proceedings and advised avoiding admissions under coercion. The Tribunal relied on several ITAT judgments, including its own in similar cases, to conclude that the penalty imposed under Section 271AAB was wrong and bad in law. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 1,00,11,335/- was directed to be deleted. The issue of whether the penalty is mandatory was not expressly decided, but the finding on undisclosed income rendered it moot. The issue of specificity of reasons for penalty was implicitly addressed by the finding that no undisclosed income existed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided sales registers and other documents showing the cash was from sales. The AO had not brought any contrary evidence, and the rejection of books under Section 145(3) precluded a separate addition under Section 68. The Tribunal followed a prior decision covering this issue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient reasons. It further held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E for intimations processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015, is not permissible, following various High Court decisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient reasons. It further held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E for intimations processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015, is not permissible, following various High Court decisions.

The Tribunal noted the appellant's application to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn due to moving an application for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient reasons. It further held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E for intimations processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015, is not permissible, following various High Court decisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to costs, citing the principles of natural justice. However, it also noted the assessee's failure to diligently produce relevant documents and explain the source of funds, leading to a decision to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits made during demonetization could not be added under Section 68 as unexplained cash credit. It also directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 6,30,00,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A, considering it as business income already taxed in another entity's assessment.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and with the Revenue's concurrence, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient reasons. It further held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E for intimations processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015, is not permissible, following various High Court decisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient reasons. It further held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E for intimations processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015, is not permissible, following various High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of excess cash and jewellery were not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the difference in gold jewellery weight was negligible and attributable to handling and weighing machine differences, and that the AO's assumptions about unaccounted sales were not substantiated.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient reasons. It further held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E for intimations processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015, is not permissible, following various High Court decisions.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to settlement proceedings under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal held that the appeal deserved to be dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient reasons. It further held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E for intimations processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015, is not permissible, following various High Court decisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient reasons. It further held that the levy of late filing fees under Section 234E for intimations processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015, is not permissible, following various High Court decisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee not being properly informed of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the chargeability of gifts received under Section 56(2)(v) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 and settled the tax dues. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee acquired ownership of the land on April 10, 2013, and subsequently received payments from Smt. Maya Devi. Since the assessee was the owner at the time of the agreement and subsequent payments, the amount was considered an advance for the sale of property, not a loan.

The Tribunal held that the non-registration under the RPT Act was not a bar for registration under Section 12AB, especially when a certificate was subsequently obtained. Furthermore, the ground of the trust being for a particular community was also found to be not substantiated. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated under a different provision (Section 271AAA) than the one under which the penalty was levied (Section 271(1)(c)). The show cause notice did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) violated, prejudicing the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the non-registration under the RPT Act was not a bar for registration under Section 12AB, especially when a certificate was subsequently obtained. Furthermore, the ground of the trust being for a particular community was also found to be not substantiated. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was interested in withdrawing the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Bench allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act to the deceased assessee were invalid as they were issued after his death. Consequently, the assessment order and the order passed by the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal observed that while the assessee indicated an intention to file additional evidence in Form 35, the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to file a proper application. Furthermore, the assessee had not participated before the AO, leading to a Best Judgment assessment.

The Tribunal held that the aggregate annual receipts limit for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) should be applied to each educational institution separately, not to the total receipts of all institutions run by the assessee. Consequently, the assessee's claim for exemption was allowed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance and casual behavior before the AO and CIT(A). While finding the grounds raised to be baseless, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, restored the matter to the AO for a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the additional documents, including creditor confirmations and bank statements, were satisfactory. The Tribunal noted that the authorities below did not adequately address the repayment of the loan and applied the deeming fiction of Section 68 strictly.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were not charitable or religious in nature but rather personal and family affairs disguised as a public charitable trust, based on the analysis of its financial statements. Consequently, the order of the CIT(E) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that for Varsha Enterprises, there was no evidence to suggest the party was providing accommodation entries, and thus the addition was deleted. For Shree Ram Trading Company, while the assessee's statement was not controverted, the Tribunal presumed goods were sold at a higher rate and estimated an additional profit of 3% on the sale, partly allowing the ground of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's grounds of appeal were not sustainable, citing the principle of avoiding double taxation and referring to Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the transfer price of electricity considered by the assessee was the arm's length price (ALP). The additions proposed by the TPO and confirmed by the DRP were not sustainable in law and were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the aggregate annual receipts limit for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) should be applied to each educational institution separately, not to the total receipts of all institutions run by the assessee. Consequently, the assessee's claim for exemption was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's grounds of appeal were not sustainable, citing the principle of avoiding double taxation and referring to Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided multiple email IDs over time and directed the assessee to be vigilant and participate in the proceedings.