ITAT Surat Judgments — January 2022

The Tribunal held that the unaccounted stock was part of the business income and not to be taxed under Section 69A. The unrecorded purchases were also considered part of the excess stock disclosure. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as investments were made from interest-free funds. However, the addition for employee PF/ESI contributions was upheld based on a Gujarat High Court decision.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide reconciliation for the difference in purchases. It decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to explain this difference.

The Tribunal held that since the original addition under Section 68 was deleted, the penalty levied based on that addition must also be deleted. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of a proper application for condonation of delay, the delay could not be condoned. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as unadmitted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided various documents and that the investors had responded to notices under Section 133(6). The Tribunal also observed that the amended provisions of Section 68 were not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's revision was based on a 'change of opinion' and that the AO had made sufficient inquiries. The Tribunal quashed the orders passed by the PCIT.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's revision was based on a 'change of opinion' and that the AO had made sufficient inquiries. The Tribunal quashed the orders passed by the PCIT.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the penalty appeal was dismissed without proper adjudication. The CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which mandates passing an order on the grounds of appeal with reasons.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified as the AO had made inquiries and taken a plausible view based on the available evidence. The PCIT's revision was considered a 'change in opinion' rather than a finding of an erroneous order.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's revision was based on a 'change of opinion' and that the AO had made sufficient inquiries. The Tribunal quashed the orders passed by the PCIT.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the assessee had established a new unit with substantial investment and increased production capacity. The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular 1/2013 allows deduction for new units set up after obtaining necessary approvals.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's revision was based on a 'change of opinion' and that the AO had made sufficient inquiries. The Tribunal quashed the orders passed by the PCIT.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's revision was based on a 'change of opinion' and that the AO had made sufficient inquiries. The Tribunal quashed the orders passed by the PCIT.

The Tribunal held that if income is declared under the head 'income from other sources', expenses incurred to earn that income are deductible under Section 57(iii). The disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's revision was based on a 'change of opinion' and that the AO had made sufficient inquiries. The Tribunal quashed the orders passed by the PCIT.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deductibility of excess cane price paid over FRP is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deductibility of excess cane price paid over FRP is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the unutilized portion of capital gains invested in NHAI bonds before the due date of filing the return under section 139(4) should not be disallowed for exemption under section 54-F. The assessee's claim for exemption was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deductibility of excess cane price paid is covered by a Supreme Court judgment. The matter was remitted to the AO to re-examine the excess payment, distinguishing between deductible expenditure and profit distribution.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deductibility of excess cane price paid over FRP is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was levied has been deleted, the penalty itself cannot survive. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the penalty by following the ITAT's earlier order.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the Revenue's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the VSV-20 settlement was not finalized.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deductibility of excess cane price paid over FRP is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deductibility of excess cane price paid over FRP is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing substantial justice over technicalities. It also set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, remitting the matter back for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order allowing deduction for interest earned from the cooperative bank was not erroneous, relying on jurisdictional High Court decisions. However, interest earned from a company (DGVCL) was not eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal noted that an amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) made the disallowance non-applicable if the recipient has accounted for the income and paid taxes. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification of this fact.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the interest expenses were incurred to borrow funds for investment in partnership firms, which were intended to generate remuneration and interest income taxable under 'Profits and Gains from Business or Profession'. Therefore, the interest expense was a business expense and rightly claimed as a set-off.

The Tribunal held that the principle of natural justice requires that an affected party is granted a sufficient opportunity of being heard. Since the assessee was not given such an opportunity, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal admitted the Satakhat as relevant evidence and remitted the issue of AOP status and investment addition back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The same approach was taken for the subsequent assessment year.

The Tribunal admitted the Satakhat as relevant evidence and remitted the issue of AOP status and investment addition back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The same approach was taken for the subsequent assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the books of accounts prepared after the survey date were an afterthought and could not be accepted. The case laws relied upon by the assessee were not applicable due to the unique facts.

The Tribunal held that the books of accounts prepared after the survey date were an afterthought and could not be accepted. The case laws relied upon by the assessee were not applicable due to the unique facts.

The Tribunal followed its own previous order in the assessee's own case for AY 2013-14. In that order, the Tribunal had held that deduction under Section 10AA is available for trading in the nature of re-export of imported goods, citing High Court and other Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing confirmations, bank statements, and other relevant documents for the unsecured loans. It also noted that the loan was repaid in a subsequent year and that the assessee was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine the alleged entry operators.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing confirmations, bank statements, and other relevant documents for the unsecured loans. It also noted that the loan was repaid in a subsequent year and that the assessee was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine the alleged entry operators.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to compute the income at 5% of the cash deposited on a presumptive basis under Section 44AF, considering the assessee's admission that the deposits pertained to his retail business.

The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of disputed purchases was not justified, as the AO did not conduct independent investigation and the assessee's sales were not disputed. The Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 6% of impugned purchases to account for potential revenue leakage.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the reconciliation of entries and deleted the remaining addition of Rs. 12,01,595/-. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to Rs. 54,87,073/-. However, an issue regarding suppression of income based on Form 26AS was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Since there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts during the original assessment, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as bad in law.

The assessee wished to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The CIT-DR did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the fact that the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the reconciliation of entries and deleted the remaining addition of Rs. 12,01,595/-. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to Rs. 54,87,073/-. However, an issue regarding suppression of income based on Form 26AS was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of disputed purchases was not justified, as the AO did not conduct independent investigation and the assessee's sales were not disputed. The Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 6% of impugned purchases to account for potential revenue leakage.

The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of disputed purchases was not justified, as the AO did not conduct independent investigation and the assessee's sales were not disputed. The Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 6% of impugned purchases to account for potential revenue leakage.

The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of disputed purchases was not justified, as the AO did not conduct independent investigation and the assessee's sales were not disputed. The Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 6% of impugned purchases to account for potential revenue leakage.

The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of disputed purchases was not justified, as the AO did not conduct independent investigation and the assessee's sales were not disputed. The Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 6% of impugned purchases to account for potential revenue leakage.

The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of disputed purchases was not justified, as the AO did not conduct independent investigation and the assessee's sales were not disputed. The Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 6% of impugned purchases to account for potential revenue leakage.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that once an asset becomes part of a block of assets, it loses its individual identity. Therefore, even if the asset's primary use changes, the depreciation rate applicable to the block of assets continues to apply.