ITAT Surat Judgments — August 2019

The Tribunal held that the 'sauda chitti' was a true document reflecting the actual sale consideration, and the assessee's share of the undisclosed income was rightly added. The lower authorities' findings were not disturbed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on 'borrowed satisfaction' and lacked independent application of mind by the AO. Furthermore, the denial of cross-examination violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the assessment proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable as the disallowances were based on differences of opinion or ad-hoc adjustments, and there was no evidence of deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A have no evidentiary value unless supported by independent material. Since no such material was found, and the admission was retracted, the penalty was not exigible.

The Tribunal held that mere payment by account payee cheques and TDS deduction are insufficient to prove the genuineness of commission payments when services rendered are not substantiated and buyers deny agent involvement. However, the ad-hoc disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses was deemed unjustified without specific defects being pointed out.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on factually incorrect facts and lacked tangible material. The 'sauda-chitthi' did not link the assessee to the transaction, rendering the belief of escaped income unfounded.

The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80IB(10) can be allowed for completed units of a housing project, even if the entire project is not finished by the deadline. This was based on judicial precedents from the Gujarat and Madras High Courts.

The Tribunal held that renting out agricultural land for farming purposes and receiving rent does not disqualify the assessee from claiming deduction under Section 54B, following precedent. It also held that jewellery found during search, within limits prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1916, is presumed to have a explained source.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid and bad in law because the AO recorded incorrect reasons, wrongly stating the assessee transacted with its own concern. Furthermore, the approval for reopening was mechanically granted without proper application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus of proving genuine purchases by providing sufficient documentary evidence, including bills, payments through account payee cheques, and confirmations from suppliers. The Tribunal noted that the sellers were also assessed to tax and had declared the transactions. Consequently, the entire addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim regarding advances received from customers was verified during remand proceedings. The AO had made the addition on an incorrect understanding of the facts, and the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80IB(10) can be allowed for completed units of a housing project, even if the entire project is not finished by the deadline. This was based on judicial precedents from the Gujarat and Madras High Courts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. It found that the basis for the additions, related to customs violations, was not sustained by subsequent orders from the Commissioner of Customs and CESTAT.

The Tribunal held that the additions were unsustainable as the basis for the additions (allegation of undervaluation) was deleted by the CESTAT. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. It found that the basis for the additions, related to customs violations, was not sustained by subsequent orders from the Commissioner of Customs and CESTAT.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim regarding advances received from customers was verified during remand proceedings. The AO had made the addition on an incorrect understanding of the facts, and the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that renting out agricultural land for farming purposes and receiving rent does not disqualify the assessee from claiming deduction under Section 54B, following precedent. It also held that jewellery found during search, within limits prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1916, is presumed to have a explained source.

The Tribunal held that the additions were unsustainable as the basis for the additions (allegation of undervaluation) was deleted by the CESTAT. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on 'borrowed satisfaction' and lacked independent application of mind by the AO. Furthermore, the denial of cross-examination violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the assessment proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80IB(10) can be allowed for completed units of a housing project, even if the entire project is not finished by the deadline. This was based on judicial precedents from the Gujarat and Madras High Courts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deliberately concealed income by not disclosing property sale and bank transactions. The CIT(A) rightly levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee failed to substantiate his explanations.