ITAT Surat Judgments — October 2018

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to follow due procedure by not adjudicating the issues on merit as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect in each case was below the Rs. 20 lakhs threshold specified by the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect in each case was below the Rs. 20 lakhs threshold specified by the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect in each case was below the Rs. 20 lakhs threshold specified by the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) applies to payments made to a shareholder or a concern where such a shareholder has a substantial interest. Since the assessee company was not a shareholder of the lender company, the provision was not attracted, even if there was a common shareholder with substantial interest in both entities.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect in each case was below the Rs. 20 lakhs threshold specified by the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to follow due procedure by not adjudicating the issues on merit as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders.

The Tribunal held that charitable trusts are entitled to set off excess expenditure of earlier years against the income of subsequent years, and such set-off amounts to application of income for charitable purposes under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, the claim for carry forward and set-off was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 Lakhs. The case did not fall under any of the exceptions provided in the circular.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's objects were not charitable in nature as they were confined to a special class of member industries and not for the general public utility. Therefore, the lower authorities were justified in rejecting the claim for exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 Lakhs. The present case did not fall under any of the exceptions provided in the circular.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence like PAN, bank statements, confirmations, and returns of the share subscribers. The Revenue failed to prove the amounts were tainted money of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 Lakhs. The present case did not fall within the exceptions provided in the circular.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 Lakhs. The present case did not fall under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular.

The tribunal held that delayed payments of employees' contribution to ESI and PF are not deductible if not paid within the due dates prescribed under the relevant statutes. The decision of the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court was binding, and the dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court did not constitute a binding precedent.

The Tribunal held that the entire cash deposits cannot be treated as income. Only the peak amount of deposit, which was Rs. 1,50,097/-, can be treated as income in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the principle of audi alteram partem (natural justice) was violated as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution, citing the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The assessee can apply for restoration by showing a reasonable cause for absence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's medical condition was beyond his control and prevented him from attending the proceedings. Therefore, the ex-parte orders were set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's medical condition was beyond his control and prevented him from attending the proceedings. Therefore, the ex-parte orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that commission paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India, where the agents have no Permanent Establishment in India, is not chargeable to tax in India. Consequently, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS on such payments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's belief that agricultural land is not a capital asset or eligible for exemption under Section 54B was bonafide. Since the capital gains were offered as per Section 50C and there was no positive concealment, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not time-barred. It reasoned that since the ITAT had only restored certain additions for re-examination and not set aside the entire assessment, Section 153(3)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applied, which does not prescribe the same strict time limits as Section 153(2A).

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 Lakhs are not maintainable, unless they fall under specific exceptions. The present case did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee suo motu declared the amount in the revised return within the prescribed time, further addition would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal also noted that previous orders for AY 2008-09 on identical issues allowed relief by restricting additions to net cash deposits, opening balance, and bank interest.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee suo motu declared the amount in the revised return within the prescribed time, further addition would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal also noted that previous orders for AY 2008-09 on identical issues allowed relief by restricting additions to net cash deposits, opening balance, and bank interest.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee suo motu declared the amount in the revised return within the prescribed time, further addition would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal also noted that previous orders for AY 2008-09 on identical issues allowed relief by restricting additions to net cash deposits, opening balance, and bank interest.

The Tribunal noted that the primary issue on which the penalty was levied had been set aside by a previous Tribunal order for fresh consideration. Therefore, the penalty was not maintainable in its current form.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee suo motu declared the amount in the revised return within the prescribed time, further addition would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal also noted that previous orders for AY 2008-09 on identical issues allowed relief by restricting additions to net cash deposits, opening balance, and bank interest.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee suo motu declared the amount in the revised return within the prescribed time, further addition would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal also noted that previous orders for AY 2008-09 on identical issues allowed relief by restricting additions to net cash deposits, opening balance, and bank interest.

The Tribunal held that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) was violated as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to provide the assessee another chance to present their case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order in deleting the addition for unexplained cash credit, finding that the assessee had discharged the initial onus. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s restriction of the addition for sundry creditors, considering that transactions were through banks and purchase bills were produced.

The Tribunal held that the principle of audi alteram partem (natural justice) was violated as the assessee was not given a proper hearing. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Revenue had made a guesswork addition without concrete evidence. Given the previous set-aside order for AY 2011-12 concerning the same party, the issue of Rs. 10 lakhs was remitted back to the AO for further investigation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition for unexplained cash credit, finding that the assessee had discharged the initial onus. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s restriction of the addition for sundry creditors to 20% of the unconfirmed amount.

The Tribunal held that a provident fund established under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952, is considered a recognized provident fund even without specific IT department approval. It also held that proportionate interest expenses are allowable against interest income, even if the business income is exempt.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 lakhs. The present case did not fall within the exceptions provided in the circular.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 Lakhs are not maintainable, unless they fall under specific exceptions. The present case did not fall under any exception.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 Lakhs. The case did not fall under any of the exceptions provided in the circular.

The ITAT held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to Rs. 20 Lakhs. The present case did not fall under any of the exceptions provided in the circular.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 Lakhs are not maintainable, unless they fall under specific exceptions. The present case did not fall under any exception.

The Tribunal held that the PIs were from a pre-survey period and could not be used to reject books of accounts for the post-survey period. Regarding the building investment, the Tribunal found no documentary evidence to support the AO's addition and noted that the assessee had retracted the statement made under pressure.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to immunity from penalty under Section 271AAA as they had paid the due taxes and interest. The manner of disclosure in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) was considered sufficient, aligning with High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to immunity from penalty under Section 271AAA as they had paid the due taxes and interest. The manner of disclosure in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) was considered sufficient, aligning with High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to immunity from penalty under Section 271AAA as they had paid the due taxes and interest. The manner of disclosure in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) was considered sufficient, aligning with High Court judgments.

The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition on sundry creditors, holding that the liability was disputed and not written off, thus not falling under Section 41(1). It also deleted the deemed dividend addition, finding that the assessee-firm was not a registered beneficiary in the lender company and the transaction was a short-term deposit. However, the disallowance of notional interest on loans to the sister concern was upheld.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned from fixed deposits with banks, when surplus funds are not immediately required for the society's business, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Such income is considered 'income from other sources'.

The ITAT held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to Rs. 20 Lakhs. The present case did not fall within the exceptions provided in the circular.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary details of the investors, including their identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions, with many investors appearing before the AO. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.