ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — April 2023

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO. It found that the assessee had maintained complete books of accounts, which were subjected to tax audit without adverse remarks. The reconciliation statements submitted by the assessee were verifiable with the books of accounts, tax audit report, and VAT returns.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be applied to taxable income and that the AO failed to establish that the expenditure was incurred in relation to any exempted income. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 14A was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the tax authorities relied solely on a statement and diary entries without adequately investigating the assessee's claim of trading transactions. The AO also failed to examine a crucial middleman and denied the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal held that since the property was jointly owned and purchased by four individuals, the consideration for each transferor was Rs. 12,75,000/-, which is below the threshold limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Therefore, Section 194IA was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that since the property was jointly owned and purchased by four individuals, the consideration for each transferor was Rs. 12,75,000/-, which is below the threshold limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Therefore, Section 194IA was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions because the AO, in his remand report, confirmed satisfaction with the cash credits after verifying them in the subsequent assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the tax authorities relied solely on a statement and diary entries without adequately investigating the assessee's claim of trading transactions. The AO also failed to examine a crucial middleman and denied the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal restored both issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For the cash credit issue, the CIT(A) must confront the additional evidence with the AO. For the Section 40A(3) issue, the CIT(A) must consider the provisions applicable to the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that since the property was jointly owned and purchased by four individuals, the consideration for each transferor was Rs. 12,75,000/-, which is below the threshold limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Therefore, Section 194IA was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that a temporary suspension of business does not disentitle the assessee to claim depreciation and director remuneration, provided the business is not permanently closed. The disallowances on these counts were set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the property was jointly owned and purchased by four individuals, the consideration for each transferor was Rs. 12,75,000/-, which is below the threshold limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Therefore, Section 194IA was not applicable.