ITAT Surat Judgments — March 2019

SHRI LAVJIBHAI HIRJIBHAI SUTARIYA,SURAT vs THE DY. CIT.,CIRCLE-8, NOW DY. CIT, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT

ITA 531/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2019AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence presented by the assessee, which pertained to electricity bills from 2005-2007, suggesting the seized diary entries might not relate to the assessment year under scrutiny. Consequently, the case was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.

SHRI PANKAJ KESRICHAND SHAH,NANI DAMAN vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, DAMAN

ITA 1812/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2019AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that the amended proviso to Section 50C is not applicable because the transaction was based on a lease deed executed in 1996, not an agreement to sell. Therefore, the case laws relied upon by the assessee regarding the retrospective application of the amended proviso were not applicable. However, the Tribunal found that the AO disputed the stamp duty valuation of the property. Consequently, the AO should have referred the property for valuation to the DVO as on the date of the sale deed's execution. The Tribunal relied on the principles laid down in Sushil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT and CIT v. Shri Chandra Narain Chaudhari, which mandate a reference to the DVO when the assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation. The Tribunal directed the AO to refer the property to the DVO for valuation on the date of sale. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee could claim the rent capitalization method before the DVO. The issue was set aside to the AO for re-computation of long-term capital gains after obtaining the DVO's valuation.

SHRI SHIVCHARAN BAIRWA,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), BARODA

ITA 2045/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT vs M/S. JIVRAJ TEA COMPANY, SURAT

ITA 2343/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: Disposed1 Mar 2019AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the 'rule of consistency' and previous ITAT rulings in the assessee's own cases. It was found that the interest expenses were commercially expedient and the funds withdrawn by partners were from sale proceeds, not borrowed funds.