ITAT Surat Judgments — December 2018

The Tribunal held that properties held as stock-in-trade cannot be taxed as income from house property, as any income derived from them is business income. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for interest expenses, considering it a business expenditure due to sufficient capital and nexus with business activities.

The Tribunal held that the reference to the VO was valid. However, it allowed the deduction under Section 54B for investment made prior to the sale of the old asset, following various High Court and Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's action of accepting the disclosure of Rs. 1 crore but rejecting its source as business receipts was improper. If the receipt is considered in the assessee's hands, it must be treated as business receipts, as there was no other business activity. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that brought forward business and depreciation losses are allowable for set-off against capital gains arising from the sale of business assets, even if assessed as capital gains. It also held that land and building are distinct assets, and capital gains on land should be treated as long-term capital gains.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that only the profit embedded in the suppressed receipts should be added to the income, not the gross receipts. The CIT(A)'s estimation of profit, considering the assessee's disclosure and historical profit margins, was deemed reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries regarding the cash deposits by issuing notices under Section 142(1) and examining the bank statements provided by the assessee. Therefore, the invocation of Section 263 was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries regarding the cash deposits by issuing notices under Section 142(1) and examining the bank statements provided by the assessee. Therefore, the invocation of Section 263 was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries regarding the cash deposits by issuing notices under Section 142(1) and examining the bank statements provided by the assessee. Therefore, the invocation of Section 263 was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable because the AO did not make any addition on account of unexplained loans, which was the basis for reopening. The Tribunal also found a lack of live-link between the information available to the AO and the belief formed for reopening.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable because the AO did not make any addition on account of unexplained loans, which was the basis for reopening. The Tribunal also found a lack of live-link between the information available to the AO and the belief formed for reopening.

The Tribunal considered the facts and accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Senior Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.