ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — December 2023

RAJKUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs DCIT,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

ITA 109/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the search was illegal and unjustified as it was conducted based on a wrong PAN and without proper application of mind. The nexus between the assessee and the society was not established prior to the search.

SHRI KHERAJ RAM,BARMER vs DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

ITA 112/JODH/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was availing the presumptive scheme under Section 44AD, they were not required to maintain detailed books of accounts. Therefore, the penalty for non-compliance was unjustified.

SHRI KHERAJ RAM,BARMER vs DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

ITA 111/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was availing the presumptive scheme under Section 44AD, they were not required to maintain detailed books of accounts. Therefore, the penalty for non-compliance was unjustified.

DCIT, CENTRAL CICLE-1, JODHPUR vs SANJAY SINGHAL, MOUNT ABU

ITA 101/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the search was illegal and unjustified as it was conducted based on a wrong PAN and without proper application of mind. The nexus between the assessee and the society was not established prior to the search.

RAJ KUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

ITA 108/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the search was illegal and unjustified as it was conducted based on a wrong PAN and without proper application of mind. The nexus between the assessee and the society was not established prior to the search.

SANJAY SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

ITA 111/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the search was illegal and unjustified as it was conducted based on a wrong PAN and without proper application of mind. The nexus between the assessee and the society was not established prior to the search.

RAJKUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs DCIT,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

ITA 110/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the search was illegal and unjustified as it was conducted based on a wrong PAN and without proper application of mind. The nexus between the assessee and the society was not established prior to the search.

SANJAY SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

ITA 112/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the search was illegal and unjustified as it was conducted based on a wrong PAN and without proper application of mind. The nexus between the assessee and the society was not established prior to the search.

SHRI KHERAJ RAM,BARMER vs DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

ITA 114/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was availing the presumptive scheme under Section 44AD, they were not required to maintain detailed books of accounts. Therefore, the penalty for non-compliance was unjustified.

SHRI KHERAJ RAM,BARMER vs DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

ITA 113/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was availing the presumptive scheme under Section 44AD, they were not required to maintain detailed books of accounts. Therefore, the penalty for non-compliance was unjustified.

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

ITA 330/JODH/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's valuation of shares using the DCF method was acceptable and not subject to AO's substitution of his own value. However, issues regarding unexplained creditors and expenses paid to relatives were not substantiated by the assessee before the lower authorities.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs PADMAVATI INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & SCIENCE TRUST, UDAIPUR

ITA 273/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the foreign donation qualified as a corpus donation under Section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. It found that the utilization of funds for loan repayment was with the donor's consent and did not violate the provisions, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

ITA 329/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's valuation of shares using the DCF method was acceptable and not subject to AO's substitution of his own value. However, issues regarding unexplained creditors and expenses paid to relatives were not substantiated by the assessee before the lower authorities.

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR vs M/S. PADMAVATI INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & SCIENCE TRUST, UDAIPUR

ITA 462/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the foreign donation qualified as a corpus donation under Section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. It found that the utilization of funds for loan repayment was with the donor's consent and did not violate the provisions, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs PADMAVATI INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & SCIENCE TRUST, UDAIPUR

ITA 272/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the foreign donation qualified as a corpus donation under Section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. It found that the utilization of funds for loan repayment was with the donor's consent and did not violate the provisions, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

GAJESINGH,JODHPUR vs ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

ITA 64/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT could not go beyond the scope of limited scrutiny initiated by the AO. Since the AO's notice under Section 142(1) specified limited scrutiny, the PCIT's revisional order under Section 263 was set aside.

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

ITA 162/JODH/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that 'minor forest product' is distinct from 'forest produce' as defined in Section 206C(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS on the sale of minor forest produce.

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

ITA 163/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that 'minor forest product' is distinct from 'forest produce' as defined in Section 206C(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS on the sale of minor forest produce.

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

ITA 159/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that 'minor forest product' is distinct from 'forest produce' as defined in Section 206C(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS on the sale of minor forest produce.

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

ITA 164/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that 'minor forest product' is distinct from 'forest produce' as defined in Section 206C(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS on the sale of minor forest produce.

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

ITA 160/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that 'minor forest product' is distinct from 'forest produce' as defined in Section 206C(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS on the sale of minor forest produce.

TEJPRAKASH BAHNWAR LAL MEHTA,UDAIPUR vs ITO, WARD 1(4) UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 15/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issuance of the notice under Section 148 was bad in law due to the absence of the mandatory approval from the higher authority as required by Section 151. This defect was not curable under Section 292B.

PREETI NAVEEN MEHTA,UDAIPUR vs ITO WARD 1(4) UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 13/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issuance of the notice under Section 148 was bad in law due to the absence of the mandatory approval from the higher authority as required by Section 151. This defect was not curable under Section 292B.

PREETI NAVEEN MEHTA,UDAIPUR vs ITO WARD 1(4) UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 14/JODH/2022[2021-13]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2021-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issuance of the notice under Section 148 was bad in law due to the absence of the mandatory approval from the higher authority as required by Section 151. This defect was not curable under Section 292B.

TEJPRAKASH BHANWAR LAL MEHTA,U vs ITO WARD 1(4), UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 16/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issuance of the notice under Section 148 was bad in law due to the absence of the mandatory approval from the higher authority as required by Section 151. This defect was not curable under Section 292B.

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

ITA 161/JODH/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that 'minor forest products' are distinct from 'forest produce' and are not covered under Section 206C(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS on these products.

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

ITA 165/JODH/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that 'minor forest products' are distinct from 'forest produce' and are not covered under Section 206C(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS on these products.

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

ITA 166/JODH/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that 'minor forest product' is distinct from 'forest produce' as defined in Section 206C(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS on the sale of minor forest produce.

MOHAN LAL TALESARA,UDAIPUR vs DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1(1), UDAIPUR

ITA 316/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO acted beyond jurisdiction by withdrawing TDS credit under Section 154, as it requires more than just mechanical rectification. The execution of work and other evidence should have been considered.

AMRINDER SINGH JOSAN,SRI GANGANAGAR vs ITO, WARD-3, SRIGANGANAGAR

ITA 492/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal accepted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, citing the consultant's inability to present the case effectively before lower authorities. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

SUNIL KUMAR PAGARIA,RAJSAMAND vs ACIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

ITA 77/JODH/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed14 Dec 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account was unwarranted as the AO did not point out specific discrepancies. Furthermore, the estimated GP rate was not based on comparable data from the previous year. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

DHARMENDRA VAISHNAV,JODHPUR vs ITO, WARD, PHALODI

ITA 162/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without properly adjudicating all grounds. The issue raised in ground 3 regarding the estimation of commission income was not addressed.

RAMI DEVI W/O SHRI BANWARLILAL,ANUPGARH vs ITO, WARD-4, SRIGANGANAGAR

ITA 172/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed7 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee was vital and that the case should be remanded back to the AO for a denovo assessment. The AO was also given liberty to initiate penalty proceedings afresh.

KHUSHBU BRIJ KISHORE SHARDA,THANE vs ITO, JODHPUR

ITA 177/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Dec 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) made a factual error in its observation regarding the decision on the penalty appeal. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

HASTIMAL,JALORE vs ITO, WARD-1, JALORE

ITA 116/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice and the need for the assessee to be granted a proper opportunity of being heard.

RAMI DEVI W/O SHRI BANWARLILAL,ANUPGARH vs ITO, WARD-4, SRIGANGANAGAR

ITA 171/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed7 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee was vital and that the case should be remanded back to the AO for a denovo assessment. The AO was also given liberty to initiate penalty proceedings afresh.

RAJENDRA KOTHARI,ARNOD vs ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

ITA 151/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal accepted the additional evidence and grounds filed by the assessee, noting that the revenue authorities had not adequately considered them. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

BHARAT MATA MANDIR NYAS,BANSWARA vs ITO, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

ITA 163/JODH/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the limit of Rs. 1 crore for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) applies to individual educational institutions, not the aggregate receipts of the entire society. Therefore, the assessee's claim for exemption was valid.

ANKUR NAHAR,BHILWARA vs CIT/ ITO, WARD-2, BHILWARA

ITA 174/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2023AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's processing of the return under Section 143(1) was flawless as the excess depreciation was not claimed in the relevant reports. The assessee failed to provide evidence of a mistake or a rectification petition.

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

ITA 21/JODH/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2023AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'scrap' requires it to be waste from manufacture or mechanical working and not usable as such. It also considered that if buyers have paid taxes on their returned income or provided Form 27BA, the assessee might not be liable. The factual aspects regarding the nature of goods sold and the applicability of Form 27BA were not sufficiently examined.

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

ITA 20/JODH/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2023AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'scrap' requires it to be waste from manufacture or mechanical working and not usable as such. It also considered that if buyers have paid taxes on their returned income or provided Form 27BA, the assessee might not be liable. The factual aspects regarding the nature of goods sold and the applicability of Form 27BA were not sufficiently examined.

DHAROHAR CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,UDAIPUR vs CIT(E), JAIPUR

ITA 186/JODH/2023[2023-24]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2023AY 2023-24Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s order rejecting the application was well-founded and did not warrant intervention. The assessee's withdrawal was based on a misconception, and the department did not take advantage of the assessee's ignorance.

JOHARI LAL SHIVRAJ GOTAM BOHRA CHARITABLE TRUST,PALI vs CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

ITA 189/JODH/2023[2023-24]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2023AY 2023-24Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to submit evidence due to technical issues. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matters were remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

JOHARI LAL SHIVRAJ GOTAM BOHRA CHARITABLE TRUST,PALI vs CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

ITA 190/JODH/2023[2023-24]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2023AY 2023-24Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to submit evidence due to technical issues. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matters were remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

ITA 22/JODH/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2023AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'scrap' requires it to be waste from manufacture or mechanical working and not usable as such. It also considered that if buyers have paid taxes on their returned income or provided Form 27BA, the assessee might not be liable. The factual aspects regarding the nature of goods sold and the applicability of Form 27BA were not sufficiently examined.