ITAT Surat Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal found that the assessee's primary business was diamond trading, not cheque discounting, as evidenced by tax audit reports and accounting policies. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's primary business was diamond trading, not cheque discounting, as evidenced by tax audit reports and accounting policies. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's primary business was diamond trading, not cheque discounting, as evidenced by tax audit reports and accounting policies. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years where the assessment was completed before the search, additions under Section 153C require incriminating material. Since no such material was found, the appeals for these years were allowed. For abated assessments, the matter was remanded for recalculation based on a High Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that notional rent cannot be taxed if no rent has accrued or been received. Regarding unsecured loans, it was held that once the assessee discharged the initial onus by providing necessary documents, the Assessing Officer should have conducted further inquiry if needed.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, confirmed the addition at 6% of the bogus purchases, considering the low gross profit declared by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid. However, regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted evidence of repayment of the loan in subsequent years only at the appellate stage. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The CIT(A) had considered the loss on sale of machinery as a loss under Section 32(1)(iii) of the Act, which is available for set off against business income, rather than a short-term capital loss under Section 50.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, confirmed the addition at 6% of the bogus purchases, considering the low gross profit declared by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate commission income at 0.10%, considering it a reasonable rate based on previous orders. The re-opening of assessment was also found to be valid.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It was held that the assessee had recorded a value higher than the Jantri rate in their books, and the balance sheet value is immaterial for Section 56(2)(vii)(b) if the registered deed value is not below the stamp duty value.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted when no exempt income has been earned by the assessee. It also affirmed the deletion of disallowance of interest on unsecured loans and interest on advances, finding no direct nexus.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by providing the lender's confirmation, PAN, bank statement, and affidavit. The AO should have inquired with the lender's AO instead of disbelieving the transaction.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The validity of reopening was also found to be in order. The assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate its grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The validity of reopening was also found to be in order. The assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate its grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It found that the additions were based on differences in opinion or technical grounds, and the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s reliance on various judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the errors in the assessment order regarding the status and accounting year were not curable under Section 292BB. It also noted that an addition was made without a prior show cause notice.

The Tribunal held that provisions written back are part of business income and eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The Assessing Officer was directed to treat these provisions as part of manufacturing profit for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning the deletion of disallowances under Section 36(1)(viia) and the expenses for centenary celebration, gift distribution, and society relief fund were dismissed. Regarding the Section 36(1)(viia) issue, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had claimed provisions for bad and doubtful debts, and the CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, implicitly agreeing with the deletion. For the expenses, the Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the orders of the authorities below. It noted that the AO disallowed the expenses for lack of details and bills, while the CIT(A) deleted them by considering that the assessee had produced evidence. The Tribunal found that the expenses were incurred for celebrating the centenary year and for business purposes, such as distributing gifts to valued customers and staff as a token of appreciation to boost business. Citing judicial precedents like CIT Vs Mehsana Dist. Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. and Pr.CIT vs. Nokia India (P) Ltd., which allowed similar expenses as business expenditure, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court judgment in Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. This judgment held that such deductions, under specific bye-laws, were not absolute income of the society.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court judgment in Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. This judgment held that such deductions, under specific bye-laws, were not absolute income of the society.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) that donations received for construction purposes, with specific donor confirmations, qualify as corpus donations and are not includible in the trust's total income. The CIT(A) relied on various High Court decisions supporting this view.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Act as it lacked reasons and a decision on merits. The assessee deserved an opportunity to be heard on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the delay of 11 minutes in filing the return was bonafide and due to technical snags on the department's website. Therefore, the assessee was eligible to carry forward the loss.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening under Section 147 was justified, disallowing 100% of the disputed purchases was not appropriate. It restricted the disallowance to 6% of the impugned purchases, considering that the assessee had made sales and declared a low profit margin.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening under Section 147 was justified, disallowing 100% of the disputed purchases was not appropriate. It restricted the disallowance to 6% of the impugned purchases, considering that the assessee had made sales and declared a low profit margin.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an agriculturist with sufficient land holdings and evidence of agricultural produce sales, had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposits. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) erred in fully deleting the addition based on the cited case, disallowing 100% of purchases was also not justified when sales were not disputed. The Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 6% of the disputed purchases.

The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, disallowing 50% of the improvement expenses due to lack of substantiation by the assessee and absence of comparable instances from the AO. The disallowance under Section 14A was upheld in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same issue again after the Tribunal had dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found the fresh order to be a misuse of power and harassment to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the omission was unintentional and the income was offered in the subsequent assessment year. Since there was no loss to the revenue and the mistake was rectified, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the 'Saudha Chithi' was a 'dumb document' as far as the assessee was concerned because it was not found at the assessee's premises, not in their handwriting, and not signed by them. Furthermore, the co-owners and the person from whom the document was seized later retracted their statements.

The Tribunal held that the 'Saudha Chithi' was a 'dumb document' as far as the assessee was concerned because it was not found at the assessee's premises, not in their handwriting, and not signed by them. Furthermore, the co-owners and the person from whom the document was seized later retracted their statements.

The Tribunal held that the 'Saudha Chithi' was a 'dumb document' as far as the assessee was concerned because it was not found at the assessee's premises, not in their handwriting, and not signed by them. Furthermore, the co-owners and the person from whom the document was seized later retracted their statements.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. The reassessment proceedings were quashed on legal grounds, including procedural lapses and the AO's failure to appreciate previous ITAT rulings and the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54 for both flats. Since the flats were purchased in AY 2014-15, before the amendment to Section 54 came into effect, the pre-amendment provisions allowing for 'a residential house' (interpreted liberally to include two adjacent flats) were applicable.

The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision which remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) to await the outcome of an SLP before the Supreme Court, while noting that the jurisdictional High Court's decision was binding.

The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) to await the outcome of an SLP filed before the Supreme Court concerning the Gujarat High Court's judgment in the GSRTC case. The appeals were dismissed at this stage.

The Tribunal held that the 'Saudha Chithi' was a 'dumb document' as far as the assessee was concerned because it was not found at the assessee's premises, not in their handwriting, and not signed by them. Furthermore, the co-owners and the person from whom the document was seized later retracted their statements.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide necessary evidence to substantiate its activities and genuineness, despite repeated opportunities. Therefore, the grounds of appeal lacked merit.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was defective, failing to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The charge against the assessee was not specific.

The tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Therefore, the tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding the transactions genuine as they were conducted through a registered broker on an electronic platform with banking channel payments. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to deviate from its findings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's predominant object was the promotion of sports, not profit. The activities generating receipts were in furtherance of sports promotion, and the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable as the assessee was not engaged in trade, commerce, or business for consideration. The CIT(A)'s order granting relief was affirmed.

The Tribunal held that the income received was from a Joint Venture agreement, not mere rental income, and thus correctly treated as business income. Depreciation on cars was disallowed as they were not part of the business's block of assets and no evidence of business use was provided.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the assessee's books of accounts and confirmed the restricted addition. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of 'on-money' and net profit rate to be reasonable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, affirming the Assessing Officer's addition. The assessee failed to provide any evidence or explanation to challenge the rejection of books or the estimation of profit, even after multiple opportunities.