ITAT Surat Judgments — April 2021

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was consistent with previous decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances, citing the principle of consistency and relevant judicial precedents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has prayed for withdrawal of the appeals and the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has prayed for withdrawal of the appeals and the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was indeed below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the land sold by the assessee was agricultural land and not a capital asset. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Dy. Collector's order, which granted permission for sale under state civil laws, specifically mentioned standing crops, a borewell, and trees, indicating its agricultural use. Furthermore, the village population was less than 10,000, failing one of the conditions for land to be a capital asset under section 2(14). Consequently, capital gains provisions were not attracted. Regarding the deduction under section 54B, the Tribunal found that the assessee had made payments for the purchase of another agricultural land and taken possession. Therefore, the assessee fulfilled the essential conditions of section 54B and was entitled to the deduction. The AO was directed to allow the deduction under section 54B. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had wrongly claimed deduction under section 54F by mistake, but this did not alter the nature of the land.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the Revenue's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the land sold by the assessee was agricultural land and not a capital asset. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Dy. Collector's order, which granted permission for sale under state civil laws, specifically mentioned standing crops, a borewell, and trees, indicating its agricultural use. Furthermore, the village population was less than 10,000, failing one of the conditions for land to be a capital asset under section 2(14). Consequently, capital gains provisions were not attracted. Regarding the deduction under section 54B, the Tribunal found that the assessee had made payments for the purchase of another agricultural land and taken possession. Therefore, the assessee fulfilled the essential conditions of section 54B and was entitled to the deduction. The AO was directed to allow the deduction under section 54B. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had wrongly claimed deduction under section 54F by mistake, but this did not alter the nature of the land.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of appeals due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the Revenue's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal and the Revenue did not object. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's request and the Revenue's no objection. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass consequential orders.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on ad-hoc or estimated additions. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was directed to be deleted.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had sought withdrawal of the appeals under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeals were treated as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of appeals due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of appeals due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of appeals due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal and the respondent's lack of objection. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. Both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that while the gifts were treated as non-genuine due to lack of conclusive proof, the assessee had made a bonafide claim supported by documentary evidence. The Assessing Officer also failed to make efforts to gather adverse evidence.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. Both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the disputes under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme and provided Form-3 as proof. The Revenue had no objection to the appeals being dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the disputes under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme and provided Form-3 as proof. The Revenue had no objection to the appeals being dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the disputes under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme and provided Form-3 as proof. The Revenue had no objection to the appeals being dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to withdraw the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.

The tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and sought withdrawal of their appeals. The Departmental Representative did not object to this request.

The tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and sought withdrawal of their appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the disputes under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme and had received Form-3. The Revenue had no objection to the appeals being dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the Revenue's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication due to the criminal events among partners hindering the assessee's ability to provide evidence. For the 'pass income' issue, the Tribunal deleted the addition, stating only net profit embedded in sales is taxable, citing a High Court precedent.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The CIT(A) found that the AO had not conducted independent inquiries to equate the assessee's land sale with the rates used in the previous case, and that the basis for the addition had itself been set aside by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's settlement under the VSV-20 scheme and the Revenue's submission. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the VSV-20 settlement was not finalized.

The Tribunal held that the undisclosed income could not be treated as business income as its nature was not explained by the assessee. Consequently, set off of business loss against this income was denied.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the AO proceeded on the erroneous footing that the assessee had not filed a return of income, which was factually incorrect. The Tribunal also noted that mere cash deposit does not automatically imply escapement of income.

The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass consequential orders as per the relevant CBDT circular.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the Revenue's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A). Since the order passed under Section 263, which led to the fresh assessment, had already been set aside by the Tribunal, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the adjustment was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the appeal if grounds were covered by an exception clause in CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance, following its own prior decision on an identical issue for the assessment year 2008-09. The Tribunal found no variation in facts and applied the principle of consistency.

The Tribunal agreed that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not admitted and was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the amortization of premium on government securities classified under 'Held to Maturity' (HTM) category is allowable as a deduction. This is consistent with RBI guidelines and various High Court and Tribunal decisions.

The ITAT noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.