ITAT Surat Judgments — September 2021

The Tribunal held that the business of the assessee-society is one and indivisible. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision, it ruled that expenditure incurred for the business is allowable in entirety and cannot be apportioned towards taxable or non-taxable activities for the purpose of Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal held that the business of the assessee-society is one and indivisible. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision, it ruled that expenditure incurred for the business is allowable in entirety and cannot be apportioned towards taxable or non-taxable activities for the purpose of Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal held that the business of the assessee-society is one and indivisible. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision, it ruled that expenditure incurred for the business is allowable in entirety and cannot be apportioned towards taxable or non-taxable activities for the purpose of Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal held that the business of the assessee-society is one and indivisible. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision, it ruled that expenditure incurred for the business is allowable in entirety and cannot be apportioned towards taxable or non-taxable activities for the purpose of Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal held that agricultural land, especially when held as stock-in-trade, is not a capital asset and therefore, Section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not applicable. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that agricultural land, especially when held as stock-in-trade, is not a capital asset and therefore, Section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not applicable. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not object to the appeal being dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This was due to the violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act as it did not decide the grounds of appeal on merit. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after granting a fair opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was therefore allowed on this ground.

The tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass consequential orders as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2021.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.