ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — October 2023

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Learned DR had no objection to the withdrawal.

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.

The Tribunal held that dumpers used for hire are eligible for higher depreciation, and development charges debited as a liability under the mercantile system are allowable. Grounds regarding Section 80IA were remanded.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim amounted to a review of the assessment order requiring further verification of books of account. Since the issue was debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record, it could not be rectified under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that an LLP firm is not required to prove the 'source of source' under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had discharged its initial burden of proving the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction.

The ITAT held that the reassessment proceedings were void because the notice under Section 148 was not served on all legal heirs of the deceased, which is a curable defect. The Tribunal confirmed the earlier order of the CIT(A) which had also quashed the assessment on similar grounds.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's action under Section 154 was incorrect and bad in law, as it amounted to reviewing an order that had already been considered on its merits. The provision of Section 154 does not permit revisiting a claim that was previously allowed.

The Tribunal held that the amendments regarding the filing of Form 10B and the applicability of certain provisions were not applicable to the assessment year 2015-16. Therefore, the delay in filing Form 10 should be condoned, and the exemption should be granted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing Form-10B on time due to technical issues. Relying on CBDT circulars and previous condonation orders, the Tribunal directed the lower authorities to accept the belatedly filed Form-10B and grant consequential relief.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing Form-10B on time due to technical issues. Relying on CBDT circulars and previous condonation orders, the Tribunal directed the lower authorities to accept the belatedly filed Form-10B and grant consequential relief.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding Section 80IB deduction and depreciation on wind mill components, stating it was an integral part of the wind mill. However, it reversed the decision on belated payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESI, restoring the Assessing Officer's disallowance.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding Section 80IB deduction and depreciation on wind mill components, stating it was an integral part of the wind mill. However, it reversed the decision on belated payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESI, restoring the Assessing Officer's disallowance.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding Section 80IB deduction and depreciation on wind mill components, stating it was an integral part of the wind mill. However, it reversed the decision on belated payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESI, restoring the Assessing Officer's disallowance.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding Section 80IB deduction and depreciation on wind mill components, stating it was an integral part of the wind mill. However, it reversed the decision on belated payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESI, restoring the Assessing Officer's disallowance.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding Section 80IB deduction and depreciation on wind mill components, stating it was an integral part of the wind mill. However, it reversed the decision on belated payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESI, restoring the Assessing Officer's disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated sufficient utilization of funds for earning income, as the interest paid was commensurate with the interest income generated. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was not justified.

The ITAT partly allowed the appeal, deleting additions related to bank deposits explained as loan transfers and disbursements. However, additions related to LIC commission and interest were sustained, and the issue of bank interest from RD accounts was remanded for verification.

The Tribunal found that the addition was based on conjecture and surmises, especially since the assessee's actual withdrawals exceeded the estimated household expenses. Therefore, the addition was vacated.

The Tribunal held that the power to levy late fees under Section 234E came into effect from 01.06.2015 and was prospective. Therefore, the levy of late fees for the period prior to this amendment was not in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal held that the power to levy late fees under Section 234E came into effect from 01.06.2015 and was prospective. Therefore, the levy of late fees for the period prior to this amendment was not in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal held that since the delay in filing Form 10 was already condoned by the CIT(Exemption) after verification of investments, the addition made by the AO was unjustified. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which imposes late filing fees, came into effect prospectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying such fees for a period prior to this amendment was incorrect.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate how the commission income was accounted for in the declared income, and the Revenue also did not clearly demonstrate the basis of the addition. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition in the hands of the owner of M/s. Rajguru Bullion was deleted by the CIT(A) and this decision was upheld by the ITAT (and subsequently the Bombay High Court found no question of law), the protective addition in the hands of the assessee should also be deleted. The Tribunal found no reason to sustain the protective addition merely because the Revenue had filed an interim application before the High Court.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate how the commission income was accounted for in the declared income, and the Revenue also did not clearly demonstrate the basis of the addition. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate how the commission income was accounted for in the declared income, and the Revenue also did not clearly demonstrate the basis of the addition. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under section 143(2) is mandatory in reassessment proceedings before finalizing the order. Failure to issue this notice is fatal to the reassessment order.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenditure by the CPC under Section 143(1)(a) is not a permissible adjustment. The Tribunal relied on a previous ITAT Kolkata bench decision stating that CPC cannot make such adjustments.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate how the commission income was accounted for in the declared income, and the Revenue also did not clearly demonstrate the basis of the addition. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate how the commission income was accounted for in the declared income, and the Revenue also did not clearly demonstrate the basis of the addition. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition in the hands of the owner of M/s. Rajguru Bullion was deleted by the CIT(A) and this decision was upheld by the ITAT (and subsequently the Bombay High Court found no question of law), the protective addition in the hands of the assessee should also be deleted. The Tribunal found no reason to sustain the protective addition merely because the Revenue had filed an interim application before the High Court.