ITAT Surat Judgments — July 2021

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issue on merits or considering the assessee's submitted statement of facts. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issue on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the dominant object of the trust was to promote trade and commerce, and earning surplus from activities incidental to this object does not disqualify it from being a charitable purpose. The proviso to Section 2(15) applies only if the entity is primarily engaged in trade, commerce, or business activities for a fee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a fair opportunity to the assessee and dismissed the appeal without considering the merits. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that if reserve and surplus funds are greater than investments, no interest disallowance under Section 14A is warranted. It also found merit in the submission that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance under Section 14A.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty, holding that penalty is not imposable on income declared in a return filed in response to a notice under section 153A, especially when the return was filed within the extended due date. The application of Explanation 5A was found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal directed that the typographical errors in the previous order be corrected. Specifically, 'assessee' was to be read as 'Revenue', 'allowed' as 'dismissed', and 'Mumbai' as 'Surat'.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, running a medical shop, is not covered by the Code of Medical Ethics Regulation, 2002. Furthermore, the payment was for 'use and occupation of property' and not for procuring patients. The Tribunal also noted that no such disallowance was made in the previous assessment year with identical facts, applying the principle of consistency.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity for a hearing. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing a fair opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme and the Revenue's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the settlement failed.

The Tribunal held that if reserve and surplus funds are greater than investments, no interest disallowance under Section 14A is warranted. It also found merit in the submission that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance under Section 14A.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a fair opportunity to the assessee and dismissed the appeal without considering the merits. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after granting a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had settled its quantum appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the penalty appeal would not survive. Consequently, the penalty appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, as it lacked specific points of determination and reasons. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not on merit and lacked proper reasoning as required by Section 250(6). The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after granting a fair opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, granting the assessee one more opportunity for hearing. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was not on merits and did not follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal restored the issue of delayed PF contribution to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It allowed the disallowance under Section 14A, holding that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income is earned. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance of various expenses, stating that ad-hoc disallowances without specifying discrepancies are not permissible.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after granting a fair hearing.