ITAT Surat Judgments — March 2018

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delays in filing the appeals, finding the assessees' reasons to be bona fide and sufficient. The appeals were then restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delays in filing the appeals, finding the assessees' reasons to be bona fide and sufficient. The appeals were then restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delays in filing the appeals, finding the assessees' reasons to be bona fide and sufficient. The appeals were then restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delays in filing the appeals, finding the assessees' reasons to be bona fide and sufficient. The appeals were then restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the rebate under Section 88E for Securities Transaction Tax (STT) is allowable even when the total income is assessed under Section 115JB. This decision was based on High Court judgments that found no rationale to exclude MAT provisions from the benefit of such rebates.

The Tribunal held that the rebate under Section 88E for Securities Transaction Tax (STT) is allowable even when the total income is assessed under Section 115JB. This decision was based on High Court judgments that found no rationale to exclude MAT provisions from the benefit of such rebates.

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delays in filing the appeals, finding the assessees' reasons to be bona fide and sufficient. The appeals were then restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delays in filing the appeals, finding the assessees' reasons to be bona fide and sufficient. The appeals were then restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delays in filing the appeals, finding the assessees' reasons to be bona fide and sufficient. The appeals were then restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delays in filing the appeals, finding the assessees' reasons to be bona fide and sufficient. The appeals were then restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were not in existence after the restoration of the cases, the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the penalties.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing 15% depreciation on Jetties and Trestle. This decision was based on a previous ITAT ruling on a similar issue for the same assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delays in filing the appeals, finding the assessees' reasons to be bona fide and sufficient. The appeals were then restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on estimated additions or technical disallowances where there is no evidence of concealment or fraud. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was sustained.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were not in existence after the restoration of the cases, the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the penalties.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were not in existence after the restoration of the cases, the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the penalties.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were not in existence after the restoration of the cases, the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the penalties.

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delays in filing the appeals, finding the assessees' reasons to be bona fide and sufficient. The appeals were then restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision for AY 2011-12, directing the AO to adopt 2% NP rate based on consistency with prior years. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt 2% NP rate, deviating from the CIT(A)'s 2.5% and upholding the principle of consistency.

The Tribunal held that reimbursement of uniform allowance based on employee declarations is adequate for TDS purposes, citing a previous decision in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also noted that the relevant CBDT circular was not applicable to uniform allowances.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision for AY 2011-12, directing the AO to adopt 2% NP rate based on consistency with prior years. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt 2% NP rate, deviating from the CIT(A)'s 2.5% and upholding the principle of consistency.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to pass a speaking order on the assessee's objections before proceeding with the reassessment renders the assessment order bad in law. This decision was based on Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defect. The Tribunal relied on the ratio in Morgan Stanley Asset Management Inc. v. DCIT, which stated that filing a copy of the PoA instead of the original, in certain circumstances, is an irregularity and cannot invalidate the return or appeal, especially when the original PoA exists and an opportunity to file it was not adequately given. The Tribunal also cited several other judicial pronouncements, including those from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, emphasizing that defects in filing appeals should be scrutinized at the initial stage and the appellant should be given an opportunity to remove them, as per principles of natural justice. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defect by filing a proper PoA and then decide the appeal on its merits. The appeal was set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable. The assessee also did not press their cross-objection.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that depreciation is allowable while computing income for application under Section 11(1)(a). It also relied on a Supreme Court decision regarding income accumulation.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on discrepancies between stock statements submitted to banks for credit facilities and the books of accounts, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. The pending SLP before the Supreme Court did not negate the binding effect of the High Court's ruling.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had no power to refer the matter to the DVO under Section 55A as the value shown by the assessees was not less than the fair market value. Therefore, the additions made to the long-term capital gains were deleted.