ITAT Surat Judgments — September 2020

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Tasgaon Taluka S. S. K. Ltd., held that the additional price paid over SMP may contain an element of profit. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to determine the profit component of the additional payment.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Tasgaon Taluka S. S. K. Ltd., held that the additional price paid over SMP may contain an element of profit. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to determine the profit component of the additional payment.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Tasgaon Taluka S. S. K. Ltd., held that the additional price paid to sugarcane growers might include a component of profit. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh determination.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Tasgaon Taluka S. S. K. Ltd., held that the additional price paid over SMP may contain an element of profit. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to determine the profit component of the additional payment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee and her son were co-owners of the land and the housing project. They relied on a co-ordinate bench decision for an earlier assessment year on identical facts, allowing the deduction.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Tasgaon Taluka S. S. K. Ltd., held that the additional price paid to sugarcane growers might include a component of profit. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed in the name of a deceased person, which is invalid. Therefore, the entire assessment proceedings are vitiated. The appeal was allowed on this ground.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to revive if exceptions apply.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The assessee sought to withdraw both appeals as they had filed an application for settlement of dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Act, 2020. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee sought to withdraw both appeals as they had filed an application for settlement of dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Act, 2020. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to send notices to the correct address provided by the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, considering the assessee's old age and subsequent demise. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of these evidences.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had prayed for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not object to this request.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a mere change of opinion, as the Assessing Officer had already inquired into and accepted the issue of interest payment to related parties during the original assessment. Therefore, the reopening was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that there is no bar to filing a fresh application for registration even if a previous one was rejected. Considering that the assessee claimed to have furnished necessary documents before the PCIT, the case was restored to the PCIT for fresh consideration.