ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — December 2020

The Tribunal held that the sale of plots was correctly treated as capital gains, following its own previous orders. It also upheld the deletion of interest disallowance, noting that the assessee's own funds exceeded the interest-free advances.

The Tribunal held that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 could not be invoked because the issues, including disallowances under Section 40A(3) and 40A(2)(b), had already been adjudicated by the Tribunal. The principle of merger applied, making the Pr. CIT's action invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentary evidence for the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share applicants. The AO failed to provide adverse material to dislodge the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition itself was deleted by a prior order of the Tribunal, the penalty levied on that addition would not survive. No interference was required with the impugned order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the expenditure was supported by documentary evidence. Therefore, the addition made under section 69C was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bona fide belief that the share transactions were capital investments, not business. Since the AO accepted the income under capital gains and not business, the penalty under Section 271B was unjustified.

The Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority had not independently adjudicated the issues raised by the assessee and had merely confirmed the Assessing Officer's findings. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits represented business receipts from unaccounted purchases. They estimated profit on these unaccounted sales at 15%, which was higher than the assessee's recorded profit rate.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, providing another opportunity for the assessee to substantiate the source of advances. The assessee was directed to produce supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was not justified as the assessee did not claim any other expenditure. It further held that the interest expenditure had a direct nexus with the investments made in the partnership firms, making it an allowable deduction.

The Tribunal held that statements recorded during survey operations do not carry much evidentiary value unless corroborated. The assessee's claim of calculation errors in stock valuation was found to be supported by evidence and was not a mere afterthought.

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present their case. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for re-adjudication after providing a fresh hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding additions for unexplained creditors and unsecured loans, finding the assessee had provided sufficient evidence. For unrecorded receipts, the issue was remanded for factual verification. Regarding expenses, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, restricting disallowances to cash expenditure.

The Tribunal held that since a substantial part of the transaction was accepted and the purchase cost was supported by confirmation, the benefit of the cash payment of Rs. 1.50 Lacs towards purchase cost should be allowed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim with documentary evidence. However, considering the assessee is an individual with meager income, another opportunity was granted.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous decisions in favor of the assessee for multiple assessment years, and no change in facts was demonstrated. Therefore, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide corroborative material to disprove the assessee's claim of payment via cheques. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings. However, it reduced the estimated addition for unverified purchases from 15% to 3% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering the assessee had reflected a GP rate and made payments through banking channels.

The Tribunal held that the assessee successfully explained the source of cash deposits in the Punjab National Bank and the agricultural income claim. However, the assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposits in the ICICI Bank account.

The Tribunal held that the donation made by the assessee to another registered trust was a valid application of income, as it was a small percentage of donations received and the common trustees did not benefit personally. The payment of income tax was also considered incidental to the trust's objects.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had considered the issues of stock valuation and unsecured loans, and after examining the assessee's explanations and supporting documents, chose to accept them. Therefore, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was not validly exercised.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had made specific inquiries regarding the valuation of closing stock and accepted the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's assumption of lack of proper inquiry was incorrect, and the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the alleged shortcomings pointed out by the Pr. CIT would not impact the total income as the assessment was based on estimation. Furthermore, since the assessment order was already subject to appeal and the appellate proceedings had concluded, the doctrine of merger applied, making the revisional jurisdiction unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided truck-wise details and confirmations which supported the outstanding amount. It also noted that an addition related to another creditor, Sh. Jora Ram, had already been made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the excess cash found at the business premises constituted business receipts and should be taxed at slab rates, not under Section 115BBE. The assessee's surrender was considered part of business activities.

The Tribunal held that the earning of income is not a pre-requisite for allowing interest expenditure under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The purpose of the expenditure, which was to earn income, is what matters.

The Tribunal held that since the section 263 order was quashed, the original assessment order became valid. Therefore, the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) needed to be adjudicated on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was diligent in filing the appeal manually, and the subsequent e-filing should be considered. The delay should be condoned, and the appeal should be adjudicated on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decisions on disallowance of expenses, valuation of Mehrangarh Fort and Desuri House, and deletion of addition for rent-free accommodation were justified, following earlier precedents. However, the issue of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 due to factual discrepancies.

The Tribunal found that the valuation of shares based on the balance sheet as of 31.03.2015, or considering profit up to the date of issue, resulted in a value per share higher than the issue price. Therefore, Section 56(2)(viib) was not applicable, and the Pr. CIT's order was not prejudicial to the revenue.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, following previous Tribunal orders which held that the payments were normal business transactions and not covered by Section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no distinguishing features from prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the deduction claimed as rebate and discount was a business loss and an allowable deduction under Section 37(1). The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition based on the reconciled accounts and supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that the earning of income is not a prerequisite for allowing interest expenditure under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The purpose of the expenditure, which was to earn income, is what matters.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, providing another opportunity for the assessee to substantiate the source of advances. The assessee was directed to produce supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decisions on disallowance of expenses, valuation of Mehrangarh Fort and Desuri House, and deletion of addition for rent-free accommodation were justified, following earlier precedents. However, the issue of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 due to factual discrepancies.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding additions for unexplained creditors and unsecured loans, finding the assessee had provided sufficient evidence. For unrecorded receipts, the issue was remanded for factual verification. Regarding expenses, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, restricting disallowances to cash expenditure.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are unsustainable if no incriminating material is found during the search, following various High Court decisions. For AY 2014-15, certain expenses necessary to maintain corporate existence were allowed.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are unsustainable if no incriminating material is found during the search, following various High Court decisions. For AY 2014-15, certain expenses necessary to maintain corporate existence were allowed.