ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed to be a government employee, they failed to submit supporting documents to establish MLSU's status before the lower authorities. The Tribunal relied on a High Court decision but found the factual aspect unverified.

The Tribunal found that the AO had ignored the assessee's explanation and bank statements. It held that an opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee, and the matter should be remanded back to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the assessee in the Section 154 application were beyond the scope of rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. The CIT(A) correctly observed that the AO was not required to provide a hearing as the rectification order did not enhance the assessment or increase the assessee's liability.

The Tribunal quashed the appeal order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. It was held that the evidence presented by the assessee, including a Service Tax Department order and cash flow statements, warranted a fresh examination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, finding no infirmity. It reasoned that the purpose of creating a provision is for such eventualities, and the effective date of wage revision and progress of negotiations were known.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, finding no infirmity. It reasoned that the purpose of creating a provision is for such eventualities, and the effective date of wage revision and progress of negotiations were known.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, finding no infirmity. It reasoned that the purpose of creating a provision is for such eventualities, and the effective date of wage revision and progress of negotiations were known.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, finding no infirmity. It reasoned that the purpose of creating a provision is for such eventualities, and the effective date of wage revision and progress of negotiations were known.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unexplained cash and jewellery was rightly sustained by the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to provide corroborative evidence. However, the addition for sofa repair expenses was deleted due to lack of evidence from the revenue to disprove the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 46A. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de novo adjudication, with directions to consider the additional evidence and remand report.

The Tribunal held that the application for 80G registration was filed within the time allowed, interpreting the statutory provisions to avoid absurdity. The Commissioner was directed to treat the application as filed within the statutory time and verify the assessee's eligibility.

The Tribunal quashed the appeal order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. It was held that the evidence presented by the assessee, including a Service Tax Department order and cash flow statements, warranted a fresh examination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, finding no infirmity. It reasoned that the purpose of creating a provision is for such eventualities, and the effective date of wage revision and progress of negotiations were known.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, finding no infirmity. It reasoned that the purpose of creating a provision is for such eventualities, and the effective date of wage revision and progress of negotiations were known.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had declared the bank deposits and offered tax on the income earned. The Tribunal set aside the appeal order and quashed all additions made.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- for scrap sale, finding it based on surmises without evidence. However, it upheld the addition of Rs. 90,140/- for unaccounted spare parts due to lack of proper explanation.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to VFPMCs are not in the nature of contract payments attracting Section 194C. The VFPMCs act as pass-through entities for villagers involved in forest maintenance, similar to schemes like NREP and RLEGP where contractors are explicitly banned.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to VFPMCs are not in the nature of contract payments attracting Section 194C. The VFPMCs act as pass-through entities for villagers involved in forest maintenance, similar to schemes like NREP and RLEGP where contractors are explicitly banned.