ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — October 2023

M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD.,SRIGANGANAGAR vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIKANER

ITA 255/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14Withdrawn

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

LEELA DEVI GOLECHA,PALI vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JODHPUR

ITA 29/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the satisfaction that the seized documents pertained to the assessee, which is a prerequisite for invoking section 153C. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C was void-ab-initio.

MOHAN LAL MENARIA,UDAIPUR vs ITO, WARD-2(2), UDAIPUR

ITA 253/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The tribunal held that the interest disallowance would be allowable in the subsequent assessment year as the payee filed its return after the due date. The addition for bus expenses was upheld due to the lack of supporting bills and vouchers.

M/S. RASIK PRIYA RESORTS PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

ITA 199/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the addition of share application money, agreeing with the lower authorities that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the investors. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's observations regarding the onus on the assessee to prove such transactions.

M/S. RASIK PRIYA RESORTS PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

ITA 200/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the addition of share application money, agreeing with the lower authorities that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the investors. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's observations regarding the onus on the assessee to prove such transactions.

RAJTECH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,PRATAPGARH. vs ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

ITA 363/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal admitted printouts from company websites as additional evidence, which were not produced before the lower authorities. The issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification of the NBFCs' eligibility under Section 194A(3)(iii) and to provide an opportunity to the assessee.

NEELKANT NAGDA,UDAIPUR vs ITO, WAD-2(2), UDAIPUR

ITA 449/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the technical errors in the online report constituted a reasonable cause for the non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.

ACCOUNTS OFFICER (O&M), SHRIGANGANAGAR, JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED,SRIGANGANAGAR vs DCIT-TDS, JODHPUR, JODHPUR

ITA 574/JODH/2008[2007-08]Status: Disposed27 Oct 2023AY 2007-08Remanded

The Tribunal held that no TDS is deductible on the purchase of machinery. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to exclude the purchase amounts and re-compute TDS only on the work contract for installation.

ACCOUNTS OFFICER (O&M), PALI JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.,PALI vs ITO-TDS-1, JODHPUR

ITA 568/JODH/2008[ITA 2006-07]Status: Disposed27 Oct 2023Remanded

The Tribunal held that no TDS is deductible on the purchase of machinery. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to exclude the purchase amount and re-compute TDS only on the work contract for installation.

ITO, WARD-1, CHURU vs SHRI MAHESH GOYANKA, CHURU

ITA 357/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Oct 2023AY 2015-16Withdrawn

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

SR. ACCOUNTS OFFICER (CPC-CASH, JODHPUR) JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED,JODHPUR vs ITO-TDS-1, JODHPUR

ITA 573/JODH/2008[2008-09]Status: Disposed27 Oct 2023AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal held that no TDS is deductible on the purchase of machinery. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to exclude the purchase amounts and re-compute TDS only on the work contract for installation.

ACCOUNTS OFFICER (DISTRICT CIRCLE, JODHPUR) JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.,JODHPUR vs ITO-TDS-1, JODHPUR

ITA 577/JODH/2008[2006-07]Status: Disposed27 Oct 2023AY 2006-07Remanded

The Tribunal held that no TDS is deductible on the purchase of machinery. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to exclude the purchase amounts and re-compute TDS only on the work contract for installation.

DINESH KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs ITO-22(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 373/JODH/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed27 Oct 2023AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cogent and based on various judicial precedents. Therefore, they declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision.

M/S. SUPARSHAV SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD.,BHILWARA vs ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

ITA 342/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Oct 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was deleted, the penalty levied in relation to that addition was also liable to be deleted. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

ACCOUNTS OFFICER (O&M), JALORE, JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED,JALORE vs ITO-TDS-II, JODHPUR

ITA 529/JODH/2009[2007-08]Status: Disposed27 Oct 2023AY 2007-08Remanded

The Tribunal held that no TDS is deductible on the purchase of machinery. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to exclude the purchase amounts and re-compute TDS only on the work contract for installation.

ACCOUNTS OFFICER (CITY CIRCLE, JODHPUR ) JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED,JODHPUR vs ITO-TDS-1, JODHPUR

ITA 575/JODH/2008[2006-07]Status: Disposed27 Oct 2023AY 2006-07Remanded

The Tribunal held that no TDS is deductible on the purchase of machinery. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to exclude the purchase amount and re-compute TDS only on the work contract for installation.

M/S. MADAN MOHAN JAIN AND SONS,JODHPUR vs ITO, WARD-1(3), JODHPUR

ITA 96/JODH/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2023AY 2016-17Dismissed

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction that the assessee should obtain a corrected TDS statement with the correct PAN from the deductor. Once rectified, the Assessing Officer should allow the TDS credit.

SAI TIRUPATI UNIVERSITY,UDAIPUR vs CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

ITA 409/JODH/2019[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2023AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. Since the registration sought in the appeals was granted for a different period, the assessee no longer wished to pursue the matter.

SAI TIRUPATI UNIVERSITY,UDAIPUR vs CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

ITA 408/JODH/2019[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2023AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. Since the registration sought in the appeals was granted for a future period, the assessee no longer wished to pursue the matter.

M/S. MADAN MOHAN JAIN AND SONS,JODHPUR vs ITO, WARD-1(3), JODHPUR

ITA 97/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction that the assessee should obtain a corrected TDS statement with the correct PAN from the deductor. Once rectified, the Assessing Officer should allow the TDS credit.

H.R.ART AND CRAFT,JODHPUR vs DCIT, CPC, BANGALURU /ITO, WARD-3(2), BANGULURU/ JODHPUR

ITA 62/JODH/2022[2018-2019]Status: Disposed18 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim without verifying the documentary evidence of payments. The matter was remanded to the AO to examine the claim after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

VIJAY SHANTI EDUCATION TRUST,UDAIPUR vs CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

ITA 153/JODH/2023[2023-24]Status: Disposed18 Oct 2023AY 2023-24Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Since the purpose of the appeal was to obtain registration, and registration was subsequently granted, the appeal was no longer pressed.

SAVLON SULZ PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

ITA 4/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed17 Oct 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the turnover of Rs. 69,19,93,355/- exceeded 50 crores, justifying the 30% tax rate. The Tribunal also noted that rectifying this would require recomputing turnover, which is beyond the scope of Section 154.

RAJESH KANTHALIYA,UDAIPUR vs ITO, WARD-1(4), UDAIPUR

ITA 88/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A), violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHILWARA, SHASTRI NAGAR, BHILWARA vs BHILWARA ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANG LIMITED, AJMER ROAD, BHILWARA

ITA 134/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest income received from Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank Ltd. (a Regional Rural Bank) is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. However, the deletion of addition for interest received from the Central Cooperative Bank by the CIT(A) was upheld.

DINESH KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs ITO, BALOTRA

ITA 374/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the purchases by submitting relevant documents. The revenue failed to prove the purchases were bogus, making the ad hoc addition of 4.5% arbitrary and leading to double taxation. Therefore, the addition was quashed.

SHRI UDAIPUR KRISHI KENDRA,UDAIPUR vs ITO,WARD-1(4), UDAIPUR

ITA 84/JODH/2021[2015-2016]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016Withdrawn

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

SMT. ZAYADA GHORI,JODHPUR vs ITO, JODHPUR

ITA 210/JODH/2017[2008-09]Status: Heard13 Oct 2023AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 by an officer without jurisdiction renders the reassessment proceedings void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order was liable to be quashed.

JAISALMER VIKAS SAMITI,JAISALMER vs ITO, EXEMPTION, JODHPUR

ITA 116/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the mistake in the audit report was apparent from the record and covered under Section 154. The Assessing Officer was directed to rectify the intimation under Section 143(1) to reflect the correct claim of the assessee.

NARAYANI BAI DANGI,UDAIPUR vs ITO WARD 2(1), UDAIPUR

ITA 42/JODH/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities did not properly verify the nature of the land or confront the affidavit filed by the assessee. Relying on the principle from Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's grounds.

PARKASH SINWAL,HANUMANGARH vs ITO, WARD, HANUMANGARH

ITA 94/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had properly addressed the merits of the case or the assessee's claim regarding the source of the cash deposits. The matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.

PREETI SINGHVI L/H SHRI AJAY SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

ITA 152/JODH/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's allegation that the first reassessment was framed in the name of the deceased assessee was factually incorrect. The Tribunal found no merit in the grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal.

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

ITA 70/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the status of the banks where the assessee parked its investments was not ascertained by the revenue authorities. Therefore, to determine the taxability of the income, the status of both the assessee and the recipient banks needs to be established.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

ITA 168/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos. 139 to 142/Jodh/2022 and partly allowed appeals in ITA Nos. 143 and 144/Jodh/2022. The revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 167 to 169/Jodh/2022 were dismissed. Specifically, a protective addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made in the hands of the assessee company was deleted as the substantive addition was sustained in the hands of the Director, Shri Manish Chhaparwal.

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

ITA 144/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos. 139 to 142/Jodh/2022 and partly allowed appeals in ITA Nos. 143 and 144/Jodh/2022. The revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 167 to 169/Jodh/2022 were dismissed. Specifically, a protective addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made in the hands of the assessee company was deleted as the substantive addition was sustained in the hands of the Director, Shri Manish Chhaparwal.

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

ITA 140/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos. 139 to 142/Jodh/2022 and partly allowed appeals in ITA Nos. 143 and 144/Jodh/2022. The revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 167 to 169/Jodh/2022 were dismissed. Specifically, a protective addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made in the hands of the assessee company was deleted as the substantive addition was sustained in the hands of the Director, Shri Manish Chhaparwal.

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

ITA 143/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos. 139 to 142/Jodh/2022 and partly allowed appeals in ITA Nos. 143 and 144/Jodh/2022. The revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 167 to 169/Jodh/2022 were dismissed. Specifically, a protective addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made in the hands of the assessee company was deleted as the substantive addition was sustained in the hands of the Director, Shri Manish Chhaparwal.

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

ITA 142/JODH/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos. 139 to 142/Jodh/2022 and partly allowed appeals in ITA Nos. 143 and 144/Jodh/2022. The revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 167 to 169/Jodh/2022 were dismissed. Specifically, a protective addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made in the hands of the assessee company was deleted as the substantive addition was sustained in the hands of the Director, Shri Manish Chhaparwal.

RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK,JODHPUR vs ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

ITA 125/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions and without providing a reasonable opportunity to explain the facts. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

ITA 68/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the status of the banks where the assessee parked its investments was not ascertained by the revenue authorities. Therefore, to determine the taxability of the income, the status of both the assessee and the recipient banks needs to be established.

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

ITA 139/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos. 139 to 142/Jodh/2022 and partly allowed appeals in ITA Nos. 143 and 144/Jodh/2022. The revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 167 to 169/Jodh/2022 were dismissed. Specifically, a protective addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made in the hands of the assessee company was deleted as the substantive addition was sustained in the hands of the Director, Shri Manish Chhaparwal.

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

ITA 69/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the status of the banks where the assessee parked its investments was not ascertained by the revenue authorities. Therefore, to determine the taxability of the income, the status of both the assessee and the recipient banks needs to be established.

ITO, TDS-2, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs RAJENDRA KUMBHAT, HUF, JODHPUR

ITA 34/JODH/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the penalty was time-barred. The initiation of penalty proceedings was considered to have occurred on the date of the initial notice, making the subsequent imposition of penalty beyond the prescribed limitation period.

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

ITA 141/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos. 139 to 142/Jodh/2022 and partly allowed appeals in ITA Nos. 143 and 144/Jodh/2022. The revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 167 to 169/Jodh/2022 were dismissed. Specifically, a protective addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made in the hands of the assessee company was deleted as the substantive addition was sustained in the hands of the Director, Shri Manish Chhaparwal.

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs M/S. SUZUKI TEXTILES LTD., BHILWARA

ITA 151/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15Abated

The Tribunal decided to abate the appeal proceedings until the Resolution Professional, appointed as Head of the Monitoring Committee by the NCLT, appoints an Authorized Representative to defend the case. The Revenue retains the right to proceed with recovery of demand as per law.

BKS DIABETES, MEDICAL AND WELFARE TRUST,JODHPUR vs CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

ITA 153/JODH/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal found that the rejection was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

AAMEEN BELIM,JODHPUR vs ITO, WARD-2(2), JODHPUR

ITA 571/JODH/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the validity of the assessment proceedings, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. However, the Tribunal allowed the ground concerning the denial of an opportunity to present additional evidence, remanding the issue back to the CIT(A).

BKS DIABETES, MEDICAL AND WELFARE TRUST,JODHPUR vs CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

ITA 154/JODH/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal found that the rejection was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

ITA 167/JODH/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos. 139 to 142/Jodh/2022 and partly allowed appeals in ITA Nos. 143 and 144/Jodh/2022. The revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 167 to 169/Jodh/2022 were dismissed. Specifically, a protective addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made in the hands of the assessee company was deleted as the substantive addition was sustained in the hands of the Director, Shri Manish Chhaparwal.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

ITA 169/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos. 139 to 142/Jodh/2022 and partly allowed appeals in ITA Nos. 143 and 144/Jodh/2022. The revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 167 to 169/Jodh/2022 were dismissed. Specifically, a protective addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made in the hands of the assessee company was deleted as the substantive addition was sustained in the hands of the Director, Shri Manish Chhaparwal.