ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — July 2023

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the assessee was deprived of a proper hearing. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal noted that both the penalty order and the CIT(A) order were ex-parte and the assessee was deprived of justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the file of the AO to verify documents and decide on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred by not providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard before dismissing the appeal. The appellate order was set aside due to a violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the AO correctly considered the peak credit theory and allowed appropriate set-offs. The addition of Rs. 11,20,000 was sustained as the assessee failed to justify the claim for a higher set-off. The addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was also upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s reduction of additions. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection as it was not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation claim is covered by a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal allowed the depreciation claim of Rs. 62,641/- as claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that both the penalty order and the CIT(A) order were ex-parte and the assessee was deprived of justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the file of the AO to verify documents and decide on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause due to the COVID-19 lockdown. The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without granting a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that while the assessee was negligent, it felt an opportunity should be given to present arguments. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal observed that an adjournment application was filed by the assessee on the date of hearing, but it was either not seen or not displayed to the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case, with a caution against frivolous adjournments.

The Tribunal held that Section 194-IA is applicable based on the consideration paid after the effective date of the provision. Since the payment made after June 1, 2013, was below the threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs, the assessee was not liable for TDS deduction under Section 194-IA.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal and allowed it, as the revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that interest paid to third parties is a deductible business expenditure when computing net profit, even if books of account are rejected. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decision in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a cooperative society and not a cooperative bank, thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P. This decision was based on previous orders of the jurisdictional ITAT in the assessee's own case, which followed High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a cooperative society and not a cooperative bank, thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P. This decision was based on previous orders of the jurisdictional ITAT in the assessee's own case, which followed High Court judgments.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal fell under the category of low tax effect and was therefore not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the revenue had no objection. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.