ITAT Surat Judgments — December 2021

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to allow for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior rulings on similar facts. It found that the assessee's activities were based on the principle of mutuality and did not fall under the proviso to Section 2(15), thus not disentitling it to exemption.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require the affected party to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that donations received in earmarked funds are eligible for exemption as corpus funds, as evidenced by donor letters and inspector reports. It also upheld the deletion of depreciation, stating that depreciation can be claimed even if capital expenditure was allowed as application of income. The Tribunal further confirmed the deletion of interest and rent income, accepting the assessee's consistent practice of following the cash system of accounting.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior rulings on similar facts. It found that the assessee's activities were based on the principle of mutuality and did not fall under the proviso to Section 2(15), thus not disentitling it to exemption.

The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 271D can be imposed on a firm for transactions inter-se with its partners violating Section 269SS. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not record any satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings during the assessment, making the penalty order liable to be set aside.

The Tribunal held that no addition on a protective basis was justified when the source of funds was already taxed in the hands of the actual owner. Regarding contract receipts, the Tribunal found the 15% estimation excessive and directed the AO to restrict it to 10%.

The Tribunal found that the disputed additions were approximately Rs. 1.00 Crore, and the tax effect was indeed less than the Rs. 50 Lakhs limit set by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notices issued under Section 153C and the subsequent assessment orders. It found sufficient incriminating material, including electronic evidence and admissions, to confirm the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notices issued under Section 153C and the subsequent assessment orders. It found sufficient incriminating material, including electronic evidence and admissions, to confirm the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notices issued under Section 153C and the subsequent assessment orders. It found sufficient incriminating material, including electronic evidence and admissions, to confirm the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that 'bagas' used as raw material for manufacturing bio-mass fuel qualifies as waste for the purpose of Section 80JJA, following the precedent set by the Bombay High Court. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notices issued under Section 153C and the subsequent assessment orders. It found sufficient incriminating material, including electronic evidence and admissions, to confirm the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 50,00,000/-, is binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that 'bagas' used as raw material for manufacturing bio-mass fuel qualifies as waste for the purpose of Section 80JJA, following the precedent set by the Bombay High Court. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute in the quantum assessment was settled under the VSV-20 scheme. Consequently, the appeal against the penalty order was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakh for filing appeals before the Tribunal as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal, following its previous consistent decisions on similar facts, held that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IA separately for each of its undertakings. The Tribunal also directed the AO to treat advance receipts as income on a proportionate basis.

The Tribunal found that the assessee made investments in other partnership firms out of their own funds. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenses was not warranted.

The Tribunal found no defects in the assessee's books of accounts and cash flow statement, which showed cash withdrawals that were redeposited. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of share capital to the AO to determine if the investment was made in the current or previous assessment year. For the repair expenses, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to capitalize part of the expenditure while allowing routine repair expenses, thereby dismissing that ground.

The Tribunal, following its previous consistent decisions on similar facts, held that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IA separately for each of its undertakings. The Tribunal also directed the AO to treat advance receipts as income on a proportionate basis.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deductibility of excess sugarcane price is covered by a Supreme Court judgment. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, distinguishing between deductible expenditure and appropriation of profit.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment were not based on independent application of mind but on borrowed satisfaction and were mechanical. The inclusion of 'unsecured loans' in the reasons, which was not an issue for the assessee, further indicated a lack of proper application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions and evidence regarding the land's classification as commercial. The Tribunal noted that the NA permission and sale deed explicitly mentioned the land was for a showroom purpose.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deductibility of excess sugarcane price paid is covered by Supreme Court judgments. The matter was remitted to the AO to determine the profit component embedded in the price paid, allowing deduction only for the business expenditure and not profit appropriation.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the cane price paid, distinguishing between deductible expenditure and appropriation of profit, especially concerning payments to members.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deductibility of excess sugarcane price paid is covered by Supreme Court judgments. The matter was remitted to the AO to determine the profit component embedded in the price paid, allowing deduction only for the business expenditure and not profit appropriation.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deductibility of excess sugarcane price paid is covered by Supreme Court judgments. The matter was remitted to the AO to determine the profit component embedded in the price paid, allowing deduction only for the business expenditure and not profit appropriation.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the fact that the disputes were settled under the Vivad Se-Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the fact that the disputes were settled under the Vivad Se-Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deductibility of excess sugarcane price is covered by a Supreme Court judgment. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, distinguishing between deductible expenditure and appropriation of profit.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the cane price paid, distinguishing between deductible expenditure and appropriation of profit, especially concerning payments to members.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deductibility of excess sugarcane price is covered by a Supreme Court judgment. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, distinguishing between deductible expenditure and appropriation of profit.

The Tribunal held that for two properties, the difference between the declared value and the DVO's valuation was within the tolerance limit (5.77%), entitling the assessee to relief. However, for two other properties, the difference (14.77% and 14.58%) exceeded the tolerance limit, and the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the AO's presumption that growing grass is not an agricultural activity was not justified. The documentary evidence, including Form-8, clearly indicated the land was for agricultural purposes, and the AO did not present any adverse material to counter this.

The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred were pre-operative business expenses and not for an illegal business. The AO cannot dictate the essential activities of a businessman, and the expenses were incurred in anticipation of business.

The Tribunal held that for properties where the difference between the declared value and the DVO's valuation was within 10% (retrospectively applied), the addition should be deleted. For other properties where the difference exceeded 10%, the addition was upheld.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the assessee correctly booked purchases at the custom rate and the difference was automatically settled in the profit and loss account. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty. However, it granted the Assessing Officer liberty to initiate penalty proceedings afresh after passing the order in the quantum assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not make an addition on grounds other than those recorded for reopening the assessment. Since the addition was not based on the reasons for reopening, the assessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty. However, the AO was granted liberty to initiate penalty proceedings afresh after passing the order in the quantum assessment.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act as it lacked a discussion of facts and reasons. The assessee's non-appearance was attributed to personal issues, and a divorce decree was submitted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for and received Form-3 under the VSV-20 Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee's counsel stated that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this. Therefore, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.

The assessee, through a letter, expressed their wish not to press the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to this request.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid because it was based on an order that was subsequently quashed and because the AO had 'borrowed satisfaction' and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal also noted that the reopening was done after four years, triggering the proviso to Section 147.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. It granted liberty to both parties to seek restoration if the VSV scheme settlement fails.