ITAT Surat Judgments — June 2018

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee did not result in the acquisition of any new asset or enduring benefit. The service lines remained under the control of DGVCL, which could use them for other consumers.

The Tribunal held that the rental income should be treated as income from house property, consistent with past assessments and the fact that no expenses for repairs, maintenance, or depreciation were claimed against this income in the business accounts.

The Tribunal held that the rental income should be treated as income from house property, consistent with past assessments and the fact that no expenses for repairs, maintenance, or depreciation were claimed against this income in the business accounts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions for most unsecured loans, finding the assessee had discharged the initial onus. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s allowance of telescoping the sustained addition against estimated net profit.

The Tribunal held that there was no direct nexus between the interest expenses incurred by the assessee and the interest/dividend income earned from investments in other co-operative societies. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not justified.

The tribunal dismissed three appeals as withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The fourth appeal, concerning similar additions already taxed and settled in another appeal, was allowed.

The tribunal dismissed three appeals as withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The fourth appeal, concerning similar additions already taxed and settled in another appeal, was allowed.

The tribunal dismissed three appeals as withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The fourth appeal, concerning similar additions already taxed and settled in another appeal, was allowed.

The Tribunal held that mere filing of an appeal is insufficient; it requires effective pursuit. Citing Supreme Court and High Court pronouncements, the Tribunal found the appeal liable for dismissal due to non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Revenue was directed to withdraw or not press such appeals.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee, noting that the assessee was not given a proper hearing by the lower authorities. The issue was remitted back to the AO for adjudication de novo, considering the Delhi High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.

The Tribunal held that multiple adjoining plots purchased and used for constructing a single residential house are eligible for deduction under Section 54F. The purchase of plots through separate deeds does not negate the claim if they form a single residential unit.

The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order, agreeing that the trust's activities were not charitable and benefited the trustees, thus attracting Section 13. The argument that Section 12AA(3) was not retrospective was distinguished as the registration was granted after the section's introduction.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Principal Commissioner cancelling the trust's registration. It found that the trust had diverted funds for the benefit of trustees and relatives, violating Section 13 of the Act and losing its charitable character.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF was justified as per Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act, following a Gujarat High Court decision. The reduced disallowance on miscellaneous expenses was also deemed reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed made the claim in the XML computation file and that the revenue cannot take advantage of technical errors. Appellate authorities have the power to consider claims supported by documentary evidence even if not made in the original return.

The Tribunal held that the loan was given out of a cash credit account on which interest was paid, establishing a nexus between the interest-bearing funds and the advance to a relative. Therefore, the disallowance was justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and that additional evidence was necessary for proper adjudication. The principle of audi alteram partem (right to be heard) was violated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the unsecured loans, fulfilling the conditions of Section 68. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and the disallowance of interest on these loans were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned, which was Rs. 7,500. Regarding the interest on loans, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, and therefore, no disallowance of interest was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the unsecured loans, fulfilling the conditions of Section 68. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and the disallowance of interest on these loans were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and that additional evidence was necessary for proper adjudication. The principle of audi alteram partem (right to be heard) was violated.