ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — March 2020

The Tribunal found that the loss in the handicraft business was genuine due to insect biting, which was evidenced by samples shown to the AO. Since the AO accepted the closing stock and sales figures, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made on account of the GP rate.

The Tribunal held that the land was purchased as a capital asset and held for a long period, with no intention to trade. Therefore, the gains were eligible for capital gains treatment and Section 54F exemption. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow the full expenditure claimed for development.

The Tribunal held that the properties were held as capital assets for a long period and the sale was a realization of investment, not an adventure in the nature of trade. Therefore, the gain was taxable as capital gain, and the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 54F. The Tribunal also directed that the full expenditure incurred be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the improvement expenses were genuinely incurred and supported by evidence, and the brokerage expenses were essential and genuine. It also directed the AO to allow the construction expenses as claimed.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 54B, finding that the assessee provided sufficient evidence, including a government certificate, to prove the agricultural use of the land. The Tribunal also noted the new land was purchased before the return filing due date, satisfying the conditions of Section 54B(2).

The Tribunal held that the additions were not based on any material or evidence for the year under consideration and were made on suspicion. Therefore, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had duly examined the issues and applied his mind, arriving at a possible opinion. The Pr. CIT's disagreement with the AO's conclusion, without finding an error in the application of law, did not justify the exercise of powers under Section 263.

The Tribunal deleted the addition related to the sale of agriculture land belonging to Samandar Khan, finding it similar to a case where the addition was deleted. However, it upheld the addition on interest expenditure as the advances were for non-business purposes. The addition on account of cash credits was also deleted as the assessee provided satisfactory confirmations.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the assessee was substantially funded by the government and thus eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiac). No contrary evidence was presented by the revenue.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order was not erroneous as it was based on a possible interpretation of law, considering the amendments were prospective and judicial precedents supported the assessee's position. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a cooperative society and not a cooperative bank, following its own previous order and High Court decisions. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not sustainable. It relied on a previous ITAT decision with similar facts and emphasized the violation of natural justice principles due to the denial of the assessee's right to cross-examine the seller whose statement formed the basis of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO solely on the basis of the developer's statement, without corroborative material and without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the developer, was unsustainable. Following its own precedent and the decisions of higher courts, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal found that the AO had wrongly added the entire amount of sales. The Tribunal directed the AO to tax only the profit element of the alleged book debts, at 5% of the amount.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal did not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for filing appeals by the department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the Rs. 4,75,000/- addition should be treated as business income, not income from undisclosed sources, as it was declared and explained. The Rs. 1 Crore addition for unexplained investment was deleted, as the AO and CIT(A) had not rejected the assessee's books of accounts.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Rs. 4,75,000/- addition should be treated as business income, not income from undisclosed sources, as it was declared and explained. The Rs. 1 Crore addition for unexplained investment was deleted, as the AO and CIT(A) had not rejected the assessee's books of accounts.