ITAT Surat Judgments — November 2018

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 cases did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 Lakhs. The present cases 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 cases did not fall under any exceptions.

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 cases did not fall under any exceptions.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision for levying fees for late filing of TDS statements. The fee could be levied even without a specific regulatory provision in Section 200A for computation, and the additions made by the Assessing Officer were sustainable.

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 admitted additional evidence, including affidavits confirming the refund of booking advances. The penalty orders were set aside and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

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 admitted additional evidence, including affidavits confirming the refund of booking advances. The penalty orders were set aside and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not properly granted as the Additional Commissioner merely signed the approval column without recording any satisfaction. Consequently, the assessments were deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not properly granted as the Additional Commissioner merely signed the approval column without recording any satisfaction. Consequently, the assessments were deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not properly granted as the Additional Commissioner merely signed the approval column without recording any satisfaction. Consequently, the assessments were deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not properly granted as the Additional Commissioner merely signed the approval column without recording any satisfaction. Consequently, the assessments were deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not properly granted as the Additional Commissioner merely signed the approval column without recording any satisfaction. Consequently, the assessments were deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not properly granted as the Additional Commissioner merely signed the approval column without recording any satisfaction. Consequently, the assessments were deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not properly granted as the Additional Commissioner merely signed the approval column without recording any satisfaction. Consequently, the assessments were deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the AO to consider the details filed by the assessee regarding agricultural income and N.A. charges.

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 approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not properly granted as the Additional Commissioner merely signed the approval column without recording any satisfaction. Consequently, the assessments were deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that while the rejection of books was justified due to the lack of a stock register, the AO's estimation of gross profit at 25% lacked a proper basis. Therefore, the Tribunal reduced the estimated gross profit rate to 20%.

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 approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not properly granted as the Additional Commissioner merely signed the approval column without recording any satisfaction. Consequently, the assessments were deemed unsustainable.

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 while the amount received was indeed a loan/advance and fell under Section 2(22)(e), the addition should be restricted to the assessee's shareholding percentage of the accumulated profits. The addition was consequently reduced.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as they were hit by a CBDT circular prohibiting appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the "on-money" receipts are clearly linked to the sale of flats and thus constitute business receipts. Consequently, they should be taxed as business income. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to not reject the books of accounts and to delete the estimated net profit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition related to income accumulation as the assessee had already applied its income exceeding gross receipts. Regarding corpus funds, the Tribunal agreed that donations towards corpus are capital receipts and not taxable income, and expenditures were not from these funds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had purchased the business as a going concern for a lump sum consideration. Since depreciation on goodwill was allowed in earlier years and is allowable as a capital asset, the disallowance by the lower authorities was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition without allowing cross-examination of the lender who retracted his statement. The Tribunal also noted that the loan was repaid and the lender was an income tax assessee whose PAN was disclosed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority as required by Section 151 of the Act. Therefore, the notice was void ab initio and the assessment order was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C is a deeming provision applicable only to the transfer of land or building or both. Therefore, it cannot be applied to the transfer of leasehold rights.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as they were hit by a CBDT circular prohibiting appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as they were hit by a CBDT circular prohibiting appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the "on-money" receipts are clearly linked to the sale of flats and thus constitute business receipts. Consequently, they should be taxed as business income. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to not reject the books of accounts and to delete the estimated net profit.

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to cooperative societies. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal presumed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to the absence of representation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The tribunal quashed the reassessment for AY 2006-07 as reopening was not justified. For AY 2011-12, disallowances for delayed PF/ESIC contributions were confirmed, but disallowance of interest expenses due to non-deduction of TDS was set aside for verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee provided justifiable reasons for the decline in GP, and the CIT(A)'s restriction of the addition was correct. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal followed the Gujarat High Court's decision allowing set-off against survey income, thus allowing the assessee's appeal.

The tribunal quashed the reassessment for AY 2006-07 as reopening was not justified. For AY 2011-12, disallowances for delayed PF/ESIC contributions were confirmed, but disallowance of interest expenses due to non-deduction of TDS was set aside for verification.

The CIT(A) deleted the penalty imposed by the AO. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and upheld the deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's rustic background and ownership of agricultural land, it was probable that he could have saved the amount for the investment. Therefore, no addition was warranted for unexplained investment.

The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's rustic background and ownership of agricultural land, it was probable that he could have saved the amount for the investment. Therefore, no addition was warranted for unexplained investment.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was hit by a CBDT circular restricting appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 20 lakhs. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's rustic background and ownership of agricultural land, it was probable that he could have saved the amount for the investment. Therefore, no addition was warranted for unexplained investment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no error in allowing the deduction under section 80IB(10) as the project was completed within the stipulated time. The addition of Rs. 11,000 was correctly dismissed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee provided justifiable reasons for the decline in GP, and the CIT(A)'s restriction of the addition was correct. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal followed the Gujarat High Court's decision allowing set-off against survey income, thus allowing the assessee's appeal.

The tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular restricts the filing of appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 20 lakhs.