ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — September 2023

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not in accordance with the law. The assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and the PCIT's actions amounted to a change of opinion.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to satisfy the twin conditions of the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Assessing Officer had considered the assessee's submissions and evidence regarding sundry creditors, and the PCIT's view amounted to a change of opinion, not a genuine revision.

The Tribunal held that to serve the interest of justice, both parties should be given an opportunity to examine the cash flow of M/s Aman Coloniser and Developer. The assessee was directed to submit all supporting evidence without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF/ESI, if not deposited by the statutory due date, is not allowable as a deduction, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the AO's action under Section 154 was impermissible as it involved an issue requiring investigation of facts not on record, which is outside the scope of rectification. Therefore, the rectification order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that no penalty can be levied under Section 271BA if there is a reasonable cause for failure, as provided under Section 273B. Since the assessee's explanation was acceptable as reasonable, the penalty was obliterated.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) was valid as the audit report clearly indicated delayed payments, which contravened section 36(1)(va). The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. was binding and settled the issue.

The Tribunal noted an apparent error in the addition amount and that the assessee's arguments regarding the validity of the sale agreement were not fully addressed. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had obtained the desired relief before the first appellate authority. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the individual share of each co-owner in the property purchase was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, the assessee was not liable for TDS deduction under Section 194IA. Therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default.

The Tribunal noted an apparent error in the addition amount and that the assessee's arguments regarding the validity of the sale agreement were not fully addressed. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1)(a)(iv) was valid as the audit report clearly indicated delayed payments, which contravened section 36(1)(va). The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. was binding and settled the issue.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's observation was not in consonance with the third-party statement, and the assessee had no privity of contract with the third party for the alleged on-money payment. Crucially, the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the third party.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and perusing the material, noted the provisions of Section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Act, which requires compliance with any other law for the time being in force. The assessee had submitted a registration certificate under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also acknowledged the discrepancies noted by the CIT(E) regarding land and building ownership and the use of a bus for charitable purposes, which the assessee contended were based on a wrong notion. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the file of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(E) for de novo consideration of the applications under Section 12AB and Section 80G. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and make further submissions. The grounds taken by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that section 200A of the Income-tax Act did not have an enabling provision for levying fee under section 234E prior to June 1, 2015. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision, the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) incorrectly noted the grounds regarding FDR interest as 'not pressed' and that the AO's treatment of FDR interest was inconsistent. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on the FDR interest issue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) had granted relief based solely on documents without proper verification or examination. The Tribunal found no material to support the CIT(Appeals)'s findings and therefore set aside the order, upholding the AO's addition.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the source of the cash deposits, including opening cash balances and unsecured loans from parents. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(Appeals) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was ad-hoc and without reasonable basis, as specific expenses were not identified. The CIT(A) also failed to provide reasons for sustaining a part of the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was not barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. It also found that the CIT(A) correctly estimated the capital gains and initiated penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to refer the valuation to the DVO when disputed and did not consider the stamp duty valuation on the date of the agreement to sale. Therefore, the addition was unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including ledger, cash book, and bank statements, to explain the cash deposits. The Tribunal noted that one account was a joint account with the assessee's wife, whose business transactions were recorded in her books.

The Tribunal held that section 200A of the Income-tax Act did not have an enabling provision for levying fee under section 234E prior to June 1, 2015. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision, the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is deleted, as it is undisputed that the assessee incurs expenses in earning commission income. The Tribunal noted that similar income in other assessment years was accepted by the revenue.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved the availability of Rs. 6,00,000/- from her regular income. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that interest paid to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. was not subject to TDS as it had the status of a small finance bank. For other payments, the Tribunal directed verification of whether the recipients had offered the income to tax, allowing partial relief.

The Tribunal held that interest paid to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. was not subject to TDS as it had the status of a small finance bank. For other payments, the Tribunal directed verification of whether the recipients had offered the income to tax, allowing partial relief.

The Tribunal held that interest paid to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. was not subject to TDS as it had the status of a small finance bank. For other payments, the Tribunal directed verification of whether the recipients had offered the income to tax, allowing partial relief.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions for contract receipts, commission, and interest, as these were subsumed in the estimated business income. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A)'s reduction of the net profit rate based on the assessee's past performance.

The Tribunal held that the interest-free advances given to the assessee's sons, who were partners in a firm with similar business, were for commercial expediency. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover these advances.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided books of accounts, bank statements, and confirmed copies of labour payments from factories, along with affidavits from factory owners. These documents sufficiently explained the transactions, and the AO had not properly considered them.

The tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as no objection was raised by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's application for interest on refund was rejected, and the AO and CIT(A) had denied the claim for interest under section 244(1)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid self-assessment tax and subsequently faced further assessments and demands.

The Tribunal found that both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte. Considering the assessee's submissions regarding business disruption due to COVID-19 and financial difficulties, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO for delayed deposit of employee PF and ESI contributions is justified. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in the Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not adequately present their arguments regarding the applicability of TDS provisions to the Urban Improvement Trust. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not consider the actual stock inventory prepared during the survey. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a cooperative society and entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest earned from the Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank. The previous ITAT order in the assessee's own case for AY 2014-15 was followed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not adequately present their arguments regarding the applicability of TDS provisions to the Urban Improvement Trust. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying exemption under Section 11 and 12 to the assessee. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that the assessee's dominant objects were charitable, and the organization of cultural and social events was within the scope of its main objects of promoting organized arts, recreation, and education for the general public. The income from ticket sales was incidental to its main object, and crucially, the profit motive was not established. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the receipts from the event (Rs. 4,85,15,000/-) constituted 15.56% of the total receipts (Rs. 31,16,81,003/-), which was less than the 20% threshold stipulated in the proviso to Section 2(15). The surplus generated was spent towards the construction of the Lord Shiva statue, aligning with the assessee's non-profit motive. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault with the CIT(A)'s decision to allow exemption under Section 11. On the second issue, since the assessee was held to be a charitable institution eligible for exemption under Section 11/12, the capital expenditure of Rs. 22,87,80,253/- incurred for its charitable purposes was considered a valid application of income. The Tribunal saw no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s finding on this issue. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed.