ITAT Surat Judgments — March 2022

TIRUPATI PRINTS,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 224/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court's decision on a similar issue was binding. As an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to await the Supreme Court's judgment.

REKHA R. SHUKLA,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLURU

ITA 234/SRT/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2022AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court's decision on a similar issue was binding. As an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to await the Supreme Court's judgment.

CHINCO TEXTILES,SURAT vs ASSTT. DIRETOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE(CPC), BENGALURU

ITA 160/SRT/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2022AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court's decision on a similar issue was binding. As an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to await the Supreme Court's judgment.

TIRUPATI PRINTS,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 225/SRT/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2022AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court's decision on a similar issue was binding. As an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to await the Supreme Court's judgment.

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT vs M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISES, SURAT

ITA 1164/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account by the AO was not justified as there were no serious defects. It also found that the statements recorded during the survey, used for estimating sale rates, were not properly substantiated as per legal requirements.

RIDDHI SIDDHI PRINTS PVT LTD.,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGULURU

ITA 150/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court's decision on a similar issue was binding. As an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to await the Supreme Court's judgment.

REKHA R SHUKLA,NANI DAMAN vs DCIT,CPC,BANGLURU, BANGAALURU

ITA 147/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court's decision on a similar issue was binding. As an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to await the Supreme Court's judgment.

SHREE LAXMINARAYAN SYNTHETICS,SURAT vs DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT

ITA 202/SRT/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2022AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court's decision on a similar issue was binding. As an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to await the Supreme Court's judgment.

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, SURAT

ITA 1167/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account by the AO was not justified as there were no serious defects. It also found that the statements recorded during the survey, used for estimating sale rates, were not properly substantiated as per legal requirements.

M/S ALTHAN BHATAR URBAN CO.OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD/,SURAT vs PR.CIT-1, SURAT

ITA 151/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made due inquiry and taken a reasonable view, thus the assessment order was not erroneous. Furthermore, based on jurisdictional High Court decisions, interest earned from co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, SURAT

ITA 1166/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account by the AO was not justified as there were no serious defects. It also found that the statements recorded during the survey, used for estimating sale rates, were not properly substantiated as per legal requirements.

AJAY VISHVANATH PATODIA,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(1)/SRT

ITA 244/SRT/2021[2014-2015]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2022AY 2014-2015Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of interest expense disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for verification of Form 26A and payee's income inclusion. The disallowance of 20% of other expenses was upheld due to lack of proper evidence and potential personal use.

SHRI NARENDRA RAMANLAL DESAI,HUF,VALSAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, VAPI

ITA 851/AHD/2013[2003-04]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2022AY 2003-04Allowed

The Tribunal, following its previous orders on similar facts, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and present its case. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish necessary evidence.

M/S. BHAGA DOSHI COTTEX,BATOD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(6), SURAT

ITA 158/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2022AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was levied were restored back to the Assessing Officer, the penalty order would not survive. The Assessing Officer was given liberty to initiate fresh proceedings if desired after deciding the issue in restoration proceedings.

HIMATBHAI BHAGVANBHAI BHALALA,SURAT vs ITO WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

ITA 202/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15Remanded

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

U. P. SINGH AND CO.,SURAT vs CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

ITA 236/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court's decision on a similar issue was binding. As an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to await the Supreme Court's judgment.

M/S. BORDA BROTHERS,SURAT vs THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT

ITA 774/SRT/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2022AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's precedent, holding that 100% disallowance of bogus purchases was not justified. It determined that a disallowance of 6% of the impugned purchases would be sufficient to meet the possibility of revenue leakage.

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(5), SURAT vs SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, SURAT

ITA 206/SRT/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2022AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment was valid. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the addition for bogus purchases was sustained at 6% of the impugned purchases, considering the low Gross Profit Rate declared by the assessee.

SHRI MANISH AGARWAL,SURAT vs THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(5), SURAT

ITA 256/SRT/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2022AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment was valid. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the addition for bogus purchases was sustained at 6% of the impugned purchases, considering the low Gross Profit Rate declared by the assessee.

M/S. PANCHSHEEL INTERMEDIATES,SURAT vs THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT

ITA 133/SRT/2019[2004-05]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2022AY 2004-05Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the disallowance of commission expenses was upheld in quantum proceedings, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a separate proceeding. The AO did not conduct independent investigations, and the mere disallowance of expenses, especially when the payment and TDS were not disputed, does not automatically lead to a penalty.

GAUTAMCHAND CHUNILAL JAIN,SURAT vs ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT

ITA 420/SRT/2019[2007-08]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal dismissed the assessees' appeals challenging the reopening of assessment and the additions made. The Revenue's appeals were partly allowed, implying a modification of the CIT(A)'s order.

ITO, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs GAUTAMCHAND CHUNILAL JAIN, SURAT

ITA 504/SRT/2019[2007-08]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal dismissed the assessees' appeals challenging the reopening of assessment and the additions made. The Revenue's appeals were partly allowed, implying a modification of the CIT(A)'s order.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT vs M/S. BORDA BROTHERS, SURAT

ITA 765/SRT/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2022AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's precedent, holding that 100% disallowance of bogus purchases was not justified. It determined that a disallowance of 6% of the impugned purchases would be sufficient to meet the possibility of revenue leakage.

KUM. DIVYANGANA H. PARMAR,VALSAD vs THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

ITA 401/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO's comparison with land in a different area was not valid, especially when the assessee's land had better potentiality and was supported by a registered valuer's report. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

SHRI RAMPRAKASH V. VIJAYVERGIYA,SURAT vs THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(5), SURAT

ITA 253/SRT/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2022AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment was valid. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the addition for bogus purchases was sustained at 6% of the impugned purchases, considering the low Gross Profit Rate declared by the assessee.

ITO, WARD-3(3)(3), SURAT vs KUSHAL R JAIN, SURAT

ITA 575/SRT/2019[2007-08]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal dismissed the assessees' appeals challenging the reopening of assessment and the additions made. The Revenue's appeals were partly allowed, implying a modification of the CIT(A)'s order.

SHRI KUSHAL R JAIN,SURAT vs ITO-3(3)(3), SURAT

ITA 215/SRT/2020[2007-08]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2022AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal dismissed the assessees' appeals challenging the reopening of assessment and the additions made. The Revenue's appeals were partly allowed, implying a modification of the CIT(A)'s order.

MOEEN MEMORIAL WELFARE TRUST,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

ITA 117/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations. It held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and therefore set aside the order of the CIT(A).

DCIT, CIRCLE 3(3), SURAT vs DIVYA ENTERPRISES, SURAT

ITA 257/SRT/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2022AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to low tax effect. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection, finding no merit in further reducing the addition sustained by the CIT(A).

SNP MERCHANT PVT.LTD,SURAT vs DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 135/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed25 Mar 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanations for the delay to be contradictory and lacking in substantiation. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed.

ITO, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs M/S. SURYA IMPEX, SURAT

ITA 1165/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Mar 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on third-party information without providing the assessee with the investigation report or an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 6% of the disputed purchases.

NILKANTH ORGANICS P LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs THE DY. CIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE, BHARUCH

ITA 1441/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12Withdrawn

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

SHREE KARTIKEY YOG ASHRAM,SURAT vs CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 601/SRT/2018[0]Status: Disposed25 Mar 2022Dismissed

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide necessary evidence to prove the genuineness of its activities and that these activities were in line with the trust's objects. The Tribunal also noted that the order was passed within the prescribed time limit.

SHRI AKHIL VINAYAKUMAR LODHA,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 250/SRT/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed25 Mar 2022AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was on the higher side. While acknowledging that the transactions were bogus, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 6% of the disputed purchases, considering the industry profit margin.

SNP MERCHANT PVT.LTD,SURAT vs ITO(TDS)-2, SURAT

ITA 137/SRT/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed25 Mar 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanations for the delay to be contradictory and lacking in substantiation. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed.

SURYA IMPEX,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT

ITA 1378/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Mar 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on third-party information without providing the assessee with the investigation report or an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 6% of the disputed purchases.

SNP MERCHANT PVT.LTD,SURAT vs DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 136/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanations for the delay to be contradictory and lacking in substantiation. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed.

THAKORBHAI NATHUBHAI PATEL,NA

ITA 183/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 Mar 2022AY 2014-15Remanded

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 specific points of determination and reasons. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after granting a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

THAKORBHAI NATHUBHAI PATEL,NA

ITA 182/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Mar 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

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 specific points of determination and reasons. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after granting a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

SHRI PAWAN F. BIRAWAT,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT

ITA 1388/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Mar 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO made additions solely on third-party information without providing it to the assessee or allowing cross-examination. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 6% of the disputed purchases, considering industry profit margins and consistent past rulings.

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(5), SURAT vs SHRI PAWAN FOJMAL BIRAWAT, SURAT

ITA 1155/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Mar 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO made additions solely on third-party information without providing it to the assessee or allowing cross-examination. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 6% of the disputed purchases, considering industry profit margins and consistent past rulings.

HASMUKHLAL NAGINBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD -3(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 215/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Mar 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal noted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal and the Revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

SHRI PAWAN F. BIRAWAT,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(5), SURAT

ITA 277/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Mar 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO made additions solely on third-party information without providing it to the assessee or allowing cross-examination. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 6% of the disputed purchases, considering industry profit margins and consistent past rulings.

KARPARA PROJECT ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 309/SRT/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered against the assessees by the Gujarat High Court's decision. However, as the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against that decision was admitted by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(A) to be decided based on the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision.

RIDDHI SIDDHI PRINTS PVT LTD.,SURAT vs ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 149/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered against the assessees by the Gujarat High Court's decision. However, as the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against that decision was admitted by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(A) to be decided based on the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision.

THE UDHNA UDYOGNAGAR SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,SURAT vs ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR. 1(2), SURAT

ITA 106/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered against the assessees by the Gujarat High Court's decision. However, as the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against that decision was admitted by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(A) to be decided based on the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision.

SHRI SANJAY B. CHOVATIA,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(4), SURAT

ITA 780/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that agricultural land, especially when held as stock-in-trade, is not a capital asset as defined under section 2(14) and therefore not covered by section 56(2)(vii)(b). Consequently, no addition can be made on this basis.

VISHAL FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 203/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2022AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting that the jurisdictional High Court's decision was against the assessee. However, it directed that if the Supreme Court reverses the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the assessee should be allowed the deduction.

TAMANNU INTERNATIONALS P LTD,SURAT vs THE ITO,WARD,2(1) (4), SURAT

ITA 156/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered against the assessees by the Gujarat High Court's decision. However, as the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against that decision was admitted by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(A) to be decided based on the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision.

SANKALP DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 45/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered against the assessees by the Gujarat High Court's decision. However, as the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against that decision was admitted by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(A) to be decided based on the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision.