ITAT Surat Judgments — October 2021

The Tribunal considered the written request of the assessee for withdrawal and the lack of objection from the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as settled under the 'Vivad Se Viswas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to both parties to seek restoration if the settlement was not finalized.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the matter based on the outcome of the SLP pending before the Supreme Court. This was done in line with a previous order by a co-ordinate bench on a similar issue.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC passed the order without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The pandemic situation justified the assessee's request for more time. Therefore, the matter was restored to the NFAC.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was vitiated due to a violation of the principle of natural justice. The assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issue on merits and did not follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without deciding grounds-wise and without examining records. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition at 1% of gross profit, finding it reasonable given the assessees' failure to produce books of accounts and the suspicious nature of their transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition at 1% of gross profit, finding it reasonable given the assessees' failure to produce books of accounts and the suspicious nature of their transactions.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions, noting that the AO and CIT(A) had not properly examined the evidence provided, including subsequent audit reports and financial statements. The Tribunal held that the explanation regarding the timing of the audit reports and the inclusion of all relevant demat accounts was satisfactory.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in revising the assessment orders. The AO had made required inquiries and arrived at a plausible conclusion, and the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's order was unsustainable in law or that further specific inquiries were necessary.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not record satisfaction regarding the proper service of notices to the assessee. Therefore, the order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which mandates passing an order on points of determination with reasons.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in revising the assessment orders. The AO had made required inquiries and arrived at a plausible conclusion, and the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's order was unsustainable in law or that further specific inquiries were necessary.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition at 1% of gross profit, finding it reasonable given the assessees' failure to produce books of accounts and the suspicious nature of their transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition at 1% of gross profit, finding it reasonable given the assessees' failure to produce books of accounts and the suspicious nature of their transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition at 1% of gross profit, finding it reasonable given the assessees' failure to produce books of accounts and the suspicious nature of their transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition at 1% of gross profit, finding it reasonable given the assessees' failure to produce books of accounts and the suspicious nature of their transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition at 1% of gross profit, finding it reasonable given the assessees' failure to produce books of accounts and the suspicious nature of their transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition at 1% of gross profit, finding it reasonable given the assessees' failure to produce books of accounts and the suspicious nature of their transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition at 1% of gross profit, finding it reasonable given the assessees' failure to produce books of accounts and the suspicious nature of their transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition at 1% of gross profit, finding it reasonable given the assessees' failure to produce books of accounts and the suspicious nature of their transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition at 1% of gross profit, finding it reasonable given the assessees' failure to produce books of accounts and the suspicious nature of their transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition at 1% of gross profit, finding it reasonable given the assessees' failure to produce books of accounts and the suspicious nature of their transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition at 1% of gross profit, finding it reasonable given the assessees' failure to produce books of accounts and the suspicious nature of their transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition at 1% of gross profit, finding it reasonable given the assessees' failure to produce books of accounts and the suspicious nature of their transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition at 1% of gross profit, finding it reasonable given the assessees' failure to produce books of accounts and the suspicious nature of their transactions.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground challenging the validity of reassessment. It deleted the addition on account of interest on business advances as the assessee had sufficient own interest-free funds. The ad-hoc addition for office expenses was also deleted as the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of accounts.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was void ab initio. The AO had made inquiries, and even if the PCIT disagreed with the AO's conclusion, it did not automatically make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground challenging the validity of reassessment. It deleted the addition on account of interest on business advances as the assessee had sufficient own interest-free funds. The ad-hoc addition for office expenses was also deleted as the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of accounts.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground challenging the validity of reassessment. It deleted the addition on account of interest on business advances as the assessee had sufficient own interest-free funds. The ad-hoc addition for office expenses was also deleted as the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of accounts.

The tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and the revenue representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in revising the assessment orders as the AO had made adequate inquiry and taken a plausible view. The PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment orders were erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and the AO's decisions were legally sustainable.

The Tribunal held that unsold flats treated as stock-in-trade are assessable under the head 'business income' when sold, and not under 'income from house property'. Therefore, the AO was not correct in bringing to tax the notional annual letting value.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without proper opportunity to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in revising the assessment orders as the AO had made adequate inquiry and taken a plausible view. The PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment orders were erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and the AO's decisions were legally sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in revising the assessment orders as the AO had made adequate inquiry and taken a plausible view. The PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment orders were erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and the AO's decisions were legally sustainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the penalty appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had settled the quantum assessment under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme. Both parties were granted liberty to seek restoration if the VSV settlement was not finalized.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the IT Act, as it did not decide the grounds of appeal on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which mandates deciding grounds of appeal with reasons. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the road distance measured by the Inspector was more than 8 kms. The Tribunal also noted that the CBDT circular regarding aerial distance measurement was prospective.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding it unintentional. It also held that the CIT(A) passed non-speaking orders without considering the merits of the case, violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding it unintentional. It also held that the CIT(A) passed non-speaking orders without considering the merits of the case, violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the road distance measured by the Inspector was more than 8 kms. The Tribunal also noted that the CBDT circular regarding aerial distance measurement was prospective.