ITAT Surat Judgments — December 2019

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning regarding the unverifiable creditors, unexplained loan repayments, and advances to suppliers.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's lack of diligence, restored the case to the AO for a fresh decision. This was done in the interest of justice to provide an opportunity for the assessee to present their case and evidence, adhering to the principle of audi alteram partem.

The Tribunal held that deposits made into the capital gains account before the extended due date under Section 139(4) are eligible for deduction under Section 54F. The CIT(A)'s reliance on Smt. Tarulata Shyam was deemed a misinterpretation given the facts.

The Tribunal held that deposits made into the capital gains account before the extended due date under Section 139(4) are eligible for deduction under Section 54F. The CIT(A)'s reliance on Smt. Tarulata Shyam was deemed a misinterpretation of the facts.

The Tribunal held that since the AO did not record any satisfaction in the assessment order before initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D, the penalty could not be levied. This decision followed precedents from the Supreme Court and other ITAT benches.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to allow the assessee to examine the entries in the seized diary and made additions based on presumption without corroborating evidence. The Tribunal noted that the addition was made behind the assessee's back and without allowing cross-examination.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that only the net profit embedded in the 'on money' receipts is taxable, not the entire amount. The Tribunal upheld this decision, considering the assessee had already disclosed a net profit of over 30% on the unaccounted receipts.

The Tribunal held that Mr. Lee Kyo Kee is an individual Korean national without a fixed establishment in India. The technical services provided fall under Article 15 of the India-Korea DTAA, making the income taxable only in Korea.

The Tribunal held that only the profit embedded in 'on-money' receipts is taxable, not the entire amount. Since the assessee had already disclosed a significant amount, and the estimated profit was less than the disclosed income, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus of proving the creditworthiness and genuineness of the creditors. The burden shifts to the revenue to prove otherwise, and it is not the assessee's duty to prove the sub-creditors' genuineness or creditworthiness.

The Tribunal held that while the bank account was in the assessee's name, the dispute with Kalpesh P. Prajapati and the High Court order accepting liability by Kalpesh P. Prajapati were noted. The addition was confirmed only to the extent of the peak credit balance and initial deposit, on technical grounds.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee society from its surplus funds invested in fixed deposits with a nationalized bank is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. Such income is considered to be from other sources and not directly from the primary activity of providing credit facilities to members.

The Tribunal held that the additions were made on mere suspicion and vague answers from the seller, without cogent evidence to disprove the registered sale deed. The seller's admission in cross-examination that the consideration was as per the sale deed was given due weight.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had indeed conducted proper inquiries and verified the source of funds. The Pr.CIT's action was considered a mere 'change in opinion' and not based on any erroneous or prejudicial order.

The Tribunal held that since the partnership deed did not provide for interest on capital or remuneration to partners, the assessee firm could not be compelled to charge these expenses. Therefore, the AO's disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the principle of natural justice and the right to be heard. The assessee was granted one more opportunity, subject to a cost.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's custody and lack of proper notice. It held that the CIT(A) should have passed a speaking order and that the assessee deserves another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's order under Section 263 was not justified. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient details regarding the source of cash deposits and the share valuation, which were duly verified by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made sufficient inquiry and the assessee had provided all necessary documents. The assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue, and the PCIT's action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions on identical facts, held that the entire addition was unjustified. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the purchases and that the revenue had failed to prove the purchases were bogus.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions on identical facts, held that the entire addition was unjustified. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the purchases and that the revenue had failed to prove the purchases were bogus.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions on identical facts, held that the entire addition was unjustified. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the purchases and that the revenue had failed to prove the purchases were bogus.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decision in the assessee's case for a prior assessment year. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for depreciation at 15% on electric installation.

The Tribunal held that the acquisition of land by the SMC was compulsory, even though a sale deed was executed, as it followed the procedures for compulsory acquisition under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid, but the addition for investment in insurance policies was deleted as the assessee provided sufficient explanation and evidence. However, a deduction under Section 80C was allowed after verification.

The Tribunal held that the partnership deed did not provide for charging interest on debit balances. Furthermore, since the assessee's income was exempt under Section 10AA, any notional interest charged would increase eligible profits for deduction, making the disallowance revenue neutral.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made due inquiries and taken a plausible view, thus the Pr.CIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified. The Pr.CIT failed to suggest specific inquiries that the AO should have conducted.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not conducted adequate inquiries into the various issues raised by the PCIT. Consequently, the assessment order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, justifying the PCIT's action under Section 263.