ITAT Jaipur Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessee was granted immunity under the IDS scheme for the disclosed market lending, and this immunity extends to the interest earned on that lending. Therefore, the interest income is to be considered explained. The Tribunal also ruled that since the income is considered sourced and disclosed, it cannot be subjected to tax under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of short-term capital loss on the sale of KAPAAC Pharma shares was not genuine. The transactions were deemed to be artificial and arranged to create non-genuine capital gains, and the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing the loss.

The Tribunal held that the lower appellate authority (Addl./JCIT(A)) passed conflicting orders by dismissing the appeal for delay while also giving directions for re-computation of capital gains. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision, providing the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal observed that while the assessee's representative argued that non-compliance was due to the Covid pandemic and a short span for responding to notices, there was also non-appearance before the CIT(A). The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging that the assessee is a senior citizen and that the Revenue did not object. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, and imposed costs on the assessee for his non-vigilance.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed income was taxed twice. The assessee demonstrated that income from property and other sources was already offered, and reclassifying it under business income was incorrect. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the rectification application, holding that the mistake was not apparent from the record as per Section 154 of the Act and relying on Supreme Court decisions. However, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the allowance/disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) are set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue of interest-free funds. The appeals filed by the department are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and otherwise dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For other issues, the Tribunal dismissed the department's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s orders.

The Tribunal held that the evidence submitted by the assessee regarding foreign remittance for the creation of FDRs worth Rs. 1,40,00,000/- established the source of investment. Therefore, it was not a case of unexplained investment attracting Section 69.

The Tribunal set aside the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, focusing on identifying interest-free funds. For other issues like club expenses, loans and advances, contribution to DAV Trust, long service award benefits, and exempt expenses, the appeals filed by the department were dismissed. Regarding capital loss, the Tribunal held that the valuation of shares and loss needed to be assessed before further findings and remanded it to the AO.

The tribunal held that the appellant failed to establish that they acted solely as a 'kachhaarhatia'. The difference between declared turnover in GST and ITR further indicated incorrect declaration. Consequently, only full credit of TDS u/s 194H was allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the short delay in filing the appeal. On merits, considering the previous counsel's demise and the unresolved issue of notice communication, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Learned CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, disposing of the appeal for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. On merits, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple notices and did not submit evidence. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard, with the assessee being burdened with costs.

The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay, noting that the assessee's affidavit was unchallenged and the C.A.'s negligence was a valid ground. On merits, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders, finding that the assessee, an agriculturist, had not received notice u/s 148 of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were quashed, rendering the assessment orders ineffective, aligning with the High Court's decision. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that since the department issued a notice under Section 153C in compliance with the High Court's decision, it effectively acknowledged the prior ruling.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that the assessee should not suffer due to the lapse of the previous Chartered Accountant. On merits, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue of deduction to the Assessing Officer for decision.

The Tribunal held that since the department itself had issued a notice under Section 153C of the Act in compliance with the High Court's decision, the subsequent appeal challenging the set aside order was not maintainable. The special procedure under Section 153A and 153C prevails over general provisions like Section 147/148.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly set aside the assessment orders. The proceedings initiated under Section 148 were found to be not sustainable in view of the High Court's decision in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal v. ACIT, which quashed similar notices.

The Tribunal noted that the department issued notices u/s 153C in compliance with the High Court's decision. Therefore, the appeals filed by the department were held to be not maintainable as the department had already given effect to the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of notices under Section 153C by the department, in compliance with the High Court's decision, meant the department had given effect to that decision. Consequently, the appeals before the Tribunal were rendered not maintainable.

The CIT(A) deleted all additions, ruling that the Section 153C notice was invalid as it was issued on technical grounds without a finding on the merits and lacked incriminating material. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that for Section 153C proceedings to be valid, incriminating material relevant to the undisclosed income must be found during the search, which was not established in this case. Furthermore, the tribunal confirmed that the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was incorrect, as the assessee was a senior citizen without business income, thus exempt from advance tax liability.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified. It noted that the assessee had filed a return under section 148, which replaces the original return, and thus the basis for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) did not arise. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the additional evidence submitted, which supported the genuineness of the expenditure, and relied on Supreme Court judgments stating that mere disallowance of expenses cannot attract penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the society obtained registration under Section 12A and 80G on 25.07.2025, after the assessment order and the CIT(A) order. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision, considering the registration.

The tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to enable the assessee to file an application for condonation of delay. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the application first after giving an opportunity of being heard, and then proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's past GP rates were better than the declared GP rate in the current year, and the AO's addition was arbitrary. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the trading addition.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee, thereby confirming the orders passed by the lower authorities. The decision was primarily based on the assessee's persistent non-compliance with the High Court's directions and the AO's requests to furnish audited financials and books of accounts, which rendered the verification of the assessee's claims impossible.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without proper jurisdiction, as the notice u/s 142(1) was issued by a non-jurisdictional AO. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was consistently non-compliant in producing audited financials, tax audit reports, and books of accounts, both before the lower authorities and the Tribunal, despite specific directions from the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. In the absence of proper documentation for verification, the Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's arguments and confirmed the orders of the authorities below.

The Tribunal noted that while some documents were submitted, it was unclear if all requested documents were provided to the CIT(E). The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to provide the appellant with another opportunity to be heard and to dispose of the applications afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have discussed all evidence submitted by the appellant, even if it was limited to one activity. The Tribunal also noted that it was unclear if all requested documents were provided. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to provide submissions, the Tribunal felt the matter should be decided on merits. Therefore, the case was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide concrete evidence to support the allegations of bogus sales and manipulation. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had maintained proper books of accounts, which were supported by sales bills, stock records, and VAT returns. The cash sales were a regular feature of the business and were duly recorded. Therefore, the additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were not justified.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10CCB was a procedural lapse and not a substantive condition for claiming the deduction. The eligibility criteria for the startup were not disputed.

The Tribunal held that while the AO was justified in initiating penalty proceedings for non-compliance with notice u/s 142(1), considering the facts and circumstances, and the provisions of Section 273B, the assessee had a reasonable cause for not submitting the required details. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the difference in stock valuation was minor and attributable to estimation differences in weight due to impurities in jewellery, which should be ignored. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, as the Departmental Representative had no objection. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.