ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — August 2021

KAILASH GOYAL,BIKANER vs PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR, JODHPUR

ITA 33/JODH/2021[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2021AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was passed ex-parte and, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to present their case. The matter was set aside to the Principal CIT for fresh decision.

M/S. THE CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,BHILWARA vs ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

ITA 152/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2021AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the matter is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in its own case (DBIT Appeal No. 290/2016 dated 5.09.2017). The High Court had held that the expenses mandated by the PAC Development Fund Rules, 2003, are mandatory in nature and required to be kept in a reserve fund, thus constituting expenses under Rule 28. The Tribunal noted that the fact that the Revenue had not accepted the High Court's decision and had filed an SLP before the Supreme Court cannot be a basis to hold the AO's order as erroneous, as the jurisdictional High Court's order, especially in the assessee's own case, is binding on the AO. The Tribunal further observed that the decision in M/s Churu Central Cooperative Bank was rendered earlier than the decision in the assessee's own case, and the latter decision would take precedence. Even if two views were possible, the AO following the later binding decision could not be considered erroneous. The Tribunal also highlighted that the CIT(A) had consistently decided in favour of the assessee for earlier assessment years, following the High Court's decision, and the AO had followed the rule of consistency. Therefore, the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Section 263 was set aside, and the AO's order was sustained. The Tribunal expressly left undecided any issue related to the pending SLP before the Supreme Court.

THE CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,BHILWARA vs DCIT, BHILWARA

ITA 293/JODH/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2021AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the crystallization of liability for arrears of salary and other payments as per the 14th Pay Commission recommendations arose during the financial year 2012-13 (relevant to AY 2013-14), not during the financial year 2011-12 (relevant to AY 2012-13). The Tribunal noted that while the Registrar issued directions on February 10, 2012, the Board of Directors passed a resolution on April 11, 2012, and the agreement with employees was executed on April 16, 2012. These events, which determined the bank's liability and employees' enforceable claim, occurred during FY 2012-13. Therefore, the assessee was eligible to claim the deduction in AY 2013-14, not AY 2012-13. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the allowability of Rs. 1,03,36,161/-. The ground regarding interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D was not adjudicated separately as it was consequential.

DALPAT SINGH NANECHA,BHILWARA vs ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

ITA 246/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Aug 2021AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the threshold limit of Rs. 50,00,000 for TDS under Section 194IA is to be determined per transferee, not property-wise. Since each assessee's share was below the threshold, no TDS was required.

RAJESH KUMAR NAHAR,BHILWARA vs ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

ITA 245/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Aug 2021AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the threshold limit of Rs. 50,00,000 for TDS under Section 194IA is to be determined per transferee, not property-wise. Since each assessee's share was below the threshold, no TDS was required.

NAVPARGANA RAJPUROHIT SAMAJ BHAMDHAM TRUST,SIROHI vs CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

ITA 425/JODH/2018[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Aug 2021AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to submit necessary documents. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) to decide the application afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

SHRI SINDRATH KHETLAJI BHERUJI SIDROOP MAHADEV SANWARAJI MANDIR TRUST,SIROHI vs CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

ITA 106/JODH/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed11 Aug 2021AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(E). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) to decide the application afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to submit details and documents.

RSSRA POLLUTION CONTROL AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION,JODHPUR vs CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

ITA 101/JODH/2020[2020-21]Status: Disposed11 Aug 2021AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to submit necessary documents. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

JAIN SWETAMBAR URTIPUJAK SHREE SANG,PIPAR vs CIT(E), JAIPUR

ITA 157/JODH/2020[2020-21]Status: Disposed11 Aug 2021AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal believed the assessee deserved one more opportunity to submit the required details and documents. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

U AND T TRACTOR SPARES PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

ITA 43/JODH/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Aug 2021AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CPC was incorrect. It was decided that if employees' contributions to ESI and PF are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, they cannot be disallowed under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act.