ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — March 2023

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Section 12AA registration was subsequently granted by the Tribunal itself. The Tribunal observed that the amended provisions of Section 12AA allow for the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to be available for earlier assessment years pending before the AO if the objects and activities were the same as those for which registration was granted.

The Tribunal held that Section 1941A of the Income Tax Act is applicable only when the consideration for the transfer of an immovable property exceeds Rs. 50 lacs. Since the assessee's share was below this threshold, the provisions of Section 1941A could not be invoked against her.

The Tribunal held that when an affidavit is submitted, the Assessing Authority should cross-examine the deponent. Failure to do so means the contents of the affidavit should be accepted, leading to the deletion of additions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the penalty order was time-barred as it was issued after the effective date of the proviso to Section 272A(2). The amendment restricted the levy of penalty under clause (k) after July 1, 2012.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the issue regarding violation of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) was covered by a coordinate bench decision and the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, which ruled in favor of the assessee. Other grounds raised by the revenue were also rejected.

The Tribunal deleted the additions for unexplained opening capital balance and unexplained creditors, stating that Section 68 cannot be invoked when regular books of account are not maintained under Section 44AD. The denial of Section 80C deduction was confirmed due to lack of proof.

The Tribunal held that statements made during a survey do not have evidentiary value without corroborating material. Since there was no incriminating material to support the addition beyond the sale deed value, the addition was restricted to the amount the assessee failed to explain.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the basis of the rectification order. The Tribunal restored the issue of exempt income to the AO for examination on merits, allowing the ground for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to provide a valid address. The merger of the assessee bank was also noted as a contributing factor.

The Tribunal found that the rejection of books and the estimation of GP rate by the authorities below were not supported by credible evidence. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the addition by adopting a GP rate of 17.05%.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was deprived of contesting the case on merit before the CIT(A). In the interest of equity and justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to argue the case.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 Lacs. The Tribunal also noted that on merits, the CIT(A)'s order was correct as the assessee had submitted Form 26A proving tax payment by the deductee.

The Tribunal found that while the AO initially imposed the penalty for non-compliance, the assessment under Section 143(3) was completed, indicating the assessee had cooperated on other dates. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the GP rate of 25% confirmed by the CIT(A) was not entirely justified, considering a previous order for AY 1999-2000 which upheld a GP rate of 18.93%. Therefore, a GP rate of 17.5% was deemed reasonable. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding peak credit addition.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present documentary evidence and submissions. The AO was directed to provide a hearing, and the assessee was instructed to cooperate and avoid frivolous adjournments.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent its case before the First Appellate Authority in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal noted that condonation petitions for belated filing of returns had been allowed in earlier years and the petition for the current year was pending. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to submit relevant documents and allowing an opportunity for a hearing. This was done in the interest of equity and justice.

The Tribunal held that since the additions were made on an estimation basis and part relief was granted, the AO ought not to have imposed a penalty. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order under Section 154 was not in accordance with law. It relied on a Bombay High Court judgment stating that interest under Section 234A cannot be levied for periods when it was not possible for the assessee to file a return.

The Tribunal held that since the return under Section 153A was filed within the time allowed by the notice, no interest under Section 234A is leviable. The provisions of Section 153A override Section 139, meaning the due date under Section 139 is not relevant when a 153A notice is issued.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making an addition for the acquisition of property, as the case was selected for scrutiny based on property transfers, not acquisitions. The definition of 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act does not encompass acquisition of capital assets.

The Tribunal directed the authorities to grant approval effective from AY 2020-21, aligning with the assessee's contention and CBDT clarifications on amended provisions.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal and stay application. It found that the assessee had not made a prima facie case in its favour, considering the rival submissions and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a letter requesting withdrawal of the appeal. The Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the interest levy, but directed the AO to correctly calculate the interest period for which tax was deferred.

The Tribunal held that the balance 50% of additional depreciation, not allowed in the year of purchase due to use for less than 180 days, is allowable in the succeeding assessment year. The amendment made by the Finance Act, 2015, is clarificatory in nature and applies retrospectively.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to provide a fair chance for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B should be deleted. Following the precedent set by the Rajasthan High Court, it was determined that a bonafide belief regarding the nature of transactions and the non-requirement of an audit constitutes a venial and technical breach, for which penalty is not leviable.

The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT held that timely deposit of employee's contribution is essential for deduction. However, the Tribunal also observed that the assessee had deposited the contribution and directed the AO to examine this and allow relief accordingly.

The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263. The assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and the Pr. CIT's action was based on a change of opinion rather than a lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for a fresh examination. The assessee was directed to produce documentary evidence regarding its relationship with the Government of Rajasthan and cooperate with the AO.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored all issues to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to re-examine the issues after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal noted a violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by the CIT(A) for admitting additional evidence without confronting the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the AO for fresh examination, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the registration should have been granted at least from the financial year 2014-15, when the second application was filed. It also directed the CIT(E) to consider granting registration from FY 2010-11 if there was no valid reason for not processing the first application.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for a fresh examination. The assessee was directed to produce documentary evidence regarding its relationship with the Government of Rajasthan and cooperate with the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in treating the appeal as withdrawn without deciding the grounds raised by the assessee. The order was unreasoned and lacked proper adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the net profit rate at 2.5% on the gross receipts, finding no further material to contradict the CIT(A)'s findings. The assessee's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for a fresh examination. The assessee was directed to produce documentary evidence regarding its relationship with the Government of Rajasthan and cooperate with the AO.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's prayer to restore the issues to the AO for fresh examination, considering the need to verify books of account and additional evidence. The assessee was to be provided an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted a violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by the CIT(A) for admitting additional evidence without confronting the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the AO for fresh examination, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for a fresh examination. The assessee was directed to produce documentary evidence regarding its relationship with the Government of Rajasthan and cooperate with the AO.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for a fresh examination. The assessee was directed to produce documentary evidence regarding its relationship with the Government of Rajasthan and cooperate with the AO.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for a fresh examination. The assessee was directed to produce documentary evidence regarding its relationship with the Government of Rajasthan and cooperate with the AO.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for a fresh examination. The assessee was directed to produce documentary evidence regarding its relationship with the Government of Rajasthan and cooperate with the AO.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for a fresh examination. The assessee was directed to produce documentary evidence regarding its relationship with the Government of Rajasthan and cooperate with the AO.