ITAT Surat Judgments — April 2022

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was valid. It also directed that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and allowed agricultural income as claimed.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on the land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The cost of acquisition for these built-up units was estimated at 60% of the awarded amount. Agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 was also allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 6% based on consistency with a lead case.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 6% based on consistency with a lead case.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.

The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.