Loading ITAT cases…
816 tribunal orders from the Surat bench in 2022.
Showing 40 of 816 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, with additions for bogus purchases restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, considering the low gross profit rate.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, with additions for bogus purchases restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, considering the low gross profit rate.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, with additions for bogus purchases restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, considering the low gross profit rate.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, with additions for bogus purchases restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, considering the low gross profit rate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in concluding the exemption notification was not valid for the assessment year and in overlooking the CBDT circular clarifying that such approvals remain valid until withdrawn. The assessee was also not given an opportunity to be heard on the validity period.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, with additions for bogus purchases restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, considering the low gross profit rate.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, with additions for bogus purchases restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, considering the low gross profit rate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions without confronting the collected information to the assessee and relied on presumptions. The addition was also found to be inconsistent across assessment years and lacked proper justification.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the amounts pertaining to subcontractors and the amounts paid by the assessee before the due date. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, with additions for bogus purchases restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, considering the low gross profit rate.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) that the expenditure on moulds is capital in nature, allowing depreciation. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify and allow additional depreciation on moulds acquired and used for less than 180 days, as per Section 32(1)(iia).
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the amounts pertaining to subcontractors and the amounts paid by the assessee before the due date. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions without confronting the collected information to the assessee and relied on presumptions. The addition was also found to be inconsistent across assessment years and lacked proper justification.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, with additions for bogus purchases restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, considering the low gross profit rate.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be contradictory regarding the agricultural land status and the Section 54B deduction. The issue of agricultural income was also not properly adjudicated. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the entire contractual receipt cannot be treated as income and directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 8% of the contractual receipts. The Tribunal also directed that TDS credit should be granted if not already given.
The tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee with a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that late payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC is not an allowable deduction if not paid on time. This decision follows the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The Tribunal affirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68. The assessee failed to provide any evidence before the lower authorities or the Tribunal to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF and ESIC must be deposited by the due date to be eligible for deduction. The Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services P Ltd. was followed, confirming that late deposit leads to disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF and ESIC must be deposited by the due date to be eligible for deduction. The Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services P Ltd. was followed, confirming that late deposit leads to disallowance.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element in bogus purchases should be disallowed, not the entire transaction. It directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 6% of the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions regarding creditors, noting that payments made in subsequent years were accepted as genuine. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow loan processing charges as revenue expenditure incurred for business purposes.
The Tribunal found that both lower authorities passed ex parte orders without giving fair and reasonable opportunities to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to grant a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., it is an essential condition for deduction that employee's contribution to PF must be deposited on or before the due date. The assessee's argument relying on a Mumbai Tribunal order was rejected as it was considered to have overlooked the charging provision of Section 36(1)(va).
The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality, as accepted in previous years for the assessee, applies. Therefore, the income from effluent treatment charges received from members is not taxable as business income. The issue of depreciation was also remanded for verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unexplained cash credits, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not allow cross-examination of third parties whose statements were relied upon.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unexplained cash credits, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not allow cross-examination of third parties whose statements were relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the issue of late payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESI is squarely covered by the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. Therefore, the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 is upheld.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the land sold was not a capital asset as it was situated beyond 8 KM from the municipal limit. Therefore, capital gains provisions were not applicable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unexplained cash credits, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not allow cross-examination of third parties whose statements were relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted inquiries and considered the material before him, making a plausible addition of 10% of the cash deposits. The PCIT's revision was based on a mere difference of opinion, which is not sufficient grounds for revision under Section 263 when the AO has applied his mind and taken a legally sustainable view.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted inquiries and considered the material before him, making a plausible addition of 10% of the cash deposits. The PCIT's revision was based on a mere difference of opinion, which is not sufficient grounds for revision under Section 263 when the AO has applied his mind and taken a legally sustainable view.
The Tribunal held that the balance sheets and ledger accounts submitted by the assessee were fabricated and not properly authenticated. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as the assessee failed to substantiate their claims.
The Tribunal held that the application under Section 154 was filed after 16 years, making it time-barred and not maintainable. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal, as the application was filed only after prosecution proceedings began and was not based on true facts.
The Tribunal held that the application under Section 154 was filed after 16 years, making it time-barred and not maintainable. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal, as the application was filed only after prosecution proceedings began and was not based on true facts.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had notarized satakhat deeds with the advocate's wife, which served as direct evidence of the transactions. The assessee's denial was therefore not accepted.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the issue was covered by a co-ordinate bench's decision in their own case for a prior assessment year. Therefore, the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB was allowed.
The Tribunal held that since the revision order under Section 263, which formed the basis for the assessment order, was quashed by the Tribunal, the subsequent addition made in the assessment order would not survive. Therefore, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was harsh in disallowing expenses solely due to the non-production of bills, especially when the assessee provided alternative evidence and a plausible explanation for the loss of documents. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.