ITAT Surat Judgments — October 2020

The Tribunal held that the transfer of the right to specific performance, which accrued to the assessee upon full payment of consideration, constituted the transfer of a capital asset. Since this right was transferred within three years of its accrual, the capital gain was correctly treated as short-term.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate net profit at 2% of total turnover, considering the assessee's business model and lack of verifiable documentation. The addition on account of sundry creditors was not explicitly discussed in the provided excerpt of the final decision.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that an admission made under a misconception of law is not binding on the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's eligibility for LTCG based on the proviso to Section 2(42A) as applicable for the assessment year.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied for and received certificates under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and prayed for withdrawal of their appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had applied for and received certificates under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and prayed for withdrawal of their appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to provident fund is not covered under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. Deduction is only allowed if credited to the employee's account before the due date as per Section 36(1)(va).

The Tribunal held that for the purpose of computing book profit for partner remuneration under Section 40(b)(v), interest income earned from fixed deposits and income tax refunds, even if shown under 'income from other sources', should be included in the net profit as per the profit and loss account. The Assessing Officer cannot reclassify income under different heads for this purpose.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for presumptive taxation under section 44AD and declared profit above the prescribed percentage, the non-deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable. The provisions of section 44AD override sections 28 to 43C of the Act.

The assessee had requested to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to this request. Therefore, the tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had prayed for withdrawal of the appeals under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. Citing a similar case of a co-ordinate bench, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh assessment, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had prayed for withdrawal of the appeals under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the unsold shops, being stock-in-trade for the assessee's business of development, should not be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property'. The notional annual letting value cannot be brought to tax for stock-in-trade.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circulars are binding on the Revenue and that the appeal was filed contrary to the policy decision of the Department due to the low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was done after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without fulfilling the conditions for such reopening. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of investment in land had been dealt with in the original assessment and appeal, and the revenue had not challenged the deletion of additions made by the AO at that stage.

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 the withdrawal.

The tribunal dismissed the ground related to delayed PF deposit, citing a High Court decision. It allowed the ground regarding interest paid to NBFC for verification and allowed the ground for interest on late TDS payment, deeming it compensatory. The disallowance under Section 14A was also allowed as no exempt income was earned.

The Tribunal held that the land acquisition by SMC was compulsory, satisfying the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37). The decision followed previous rulings by the ITAT and the Gujarat High Court on similar acquisitions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee made bona fide claims and disclosed all material facts. Since the assessee had furnished all particulars and the charge for penalty was vague, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a sufficient opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee's contribution to Provident Fund deposited after the due date. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that Section 43B is not applicable for delayed payments of employee's PF contribution, but Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) is applicable.