ITAT Surat Judgments — November 2020

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer wrongly invoked powers under Section 80IA(8) to restrict the deduction under Section 80IB(10). The estimation of average profit by both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) was found to be without basis.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without affording a fair opportunity to the assessee and without adjudicating the additional ground of appeal. Therefore, the case was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that no fresh notice under Section 143(2) was required when the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication on specific issues. The Tribunal also deleted the additions made under Section 68, finding that the assessee had discharged its burden by establishing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. Furthermore, the additions for undervaluation of stock were deleted as the assessee's valuation methods were found to be reasonable and supported by evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in treating the return as invalid without issuing a show cause notice, especially since the AO had accepted the original return. The Tribunal admitted the additional claim made in the revised return.

The tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to low tax effect, citing a CBDT circular. The revenue was allowed to seek revival if exceptions to the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets higher monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that since the grounds of appeal and facts were identical to a previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, which was decided in favour of the assessee, there was no merit in the revenue's appeal. The order of the CIT(A) was affirmed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper notice to the assessee, who had provided a new address. Citing a similar case of the assessee's wife, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed both grounds of appeal. For depreciation, it followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case. For the Section 11(1)(a) claim, it held that the 15% accumulation is allowable irrespective of whether there is a deficit or not, citing various Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal noted that the additions on which the penalty was based were deleted by a co-ordinate bench in the quantum appeal. Therefore, the penalty order would not survive.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding labour expenses, reducing the addition by estimating the Gross Profit Ratio at 10%. However, the Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000 for account charges, confirming the addition due to the failure to establish employer-employee relationship.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated by issuing a notice under Section 147/148 to a dead person are invalid in the eyes of law. The participation of legal heirs in proceedings does not cure the defect of issuing notice to a deceased individual.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's applications to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's applications to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that land held as stock-in-trade is not a capital asset and therefore, the provisions of Section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act are not attracted. Capital gains are taxable only when the stock-in-trade is sold, not upon its introduction into the partnership.

The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80IB(10) is allowable for the completed part of the project, even if the entire project was not finished by the due date. This decision was based on previous High Court and Tribunal rulings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, as it lacked proper reasoning and was passed without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that land held as stock-in-trade is not a capital asset and therefore, the provisions of Section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act are not attracted. Capital gains are taxable only when the stock-in-trade is sold, not upon its introduction into the partnership.