ITAT Surat Judgments — May 2022

MAHESHBHAI PRABHUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1() (2), SURAT

ITA 263/SRT/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act, making the gains non-taxable. Additionally, assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Consequently, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable.

SMT. URVASHI SANJAYKUMAR GUPTA,SURAT vs ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), SURAT

ITA 346/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: Heard6 May 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that no penalty was leviable as the assessee voluntarily surrendered the income and paid the taxes along with interest. The Tribunal relied on High Court and Supreme Court decisions stating that offering higher income to avoid litigation does not automatically attract penalty.

CHIMANBHAI A. KANTESARIA,SURAT vs ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT

ITA 474/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the assessee could not fully prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan, the Assessing Officer had not made independent investigations or disproved the assessee's explanation. Relying on jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal found no justification for levying the penalty.

MOHAMMADMUNAF G. NAGORI,BHARUCH vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

ITA 13/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: Heard6 May 2022AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard and the CIT(A) order was not on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remitted the matter back for de novo adjudication.

SIDDHIVINAYAK & CO.,UMBERGAON vs ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

ITA 108/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the undisclosed income was business income and that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the indirect expenses and interest on partner's capital. Therefore, these expenses should be allowed.

SUVIDHA FASHIONS,KATARGAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.3(2)(5), SURAT

ITA 114/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: Heard6 May 2022AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the reverse chronological invoices raised suspicion, disallowing the entire purchase was excessive. For construction expenses, it found that the assessee had substantiated the minor renovation costs with invoices and bank payments.

PANKAJ PRUTHUBHAI DESAI,SURAT vs ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 146/SRT/2021[2019-20]Status: Heard6 May 2022AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's order which remitted similar matters back to the CIT(A) pending the outcome of a Supreme Court SLP. The appeal is dismissed at this stage, but the assessee can revive it if the Supreme Court reverses the Gujarat High Court's judgment.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI, VAPI vs POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

ITA 27/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition should be on net profit, not gross receipts, and that the 20% profit rate was too high. It directed the Assessing Officer to compute the net profit at 8% of the gross receipts.

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs M/S. J K PAPER LIMITED, SURAT

ITA 6/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions. The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency with earlier years' orders, finding that the grounds raised by the Revenue were similar and had already been decided in favor of the assessee.

M/S. M.D.INFRA DEVELOPERS,SURAT vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

ITA 3059/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

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.

M/S. M.D.INFRA DEVELOPERS,SURAT vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

ITA 3085/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

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.

SHRI KISHORBHAI GIJUBHAI,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 189/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act, making the gains non-taxable. Additionally, assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Consequently, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable.

SHRI MANOJBHAI GIJUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 185/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act, making the gains non-taxable. Additionally, assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Consequently, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable.

SHRI GIJUBHAI PRABHUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 193/SRT/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act, making the gains non-taxable. Additionally, assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Consequently, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable.

SHRI DAHYABHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 186/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act, making the gains non-taxable. Additionally, assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Consequently, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable.

SHRI GIJUBHAI PRABHUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 194/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act, making the gains non-taxable. Additionally, assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Consequently, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable.

SHRI PARSOTTAMBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), SURAT

ITA 190/SRT/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act, making the gains non-taxable. Additionally, assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Consequently, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable.

SHRI RAJESHBHAI NARSINHBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 187/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act, making the gains non-taxable. Additionally, assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Consequently, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable.

SHRI KANTIBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 191/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act, making the gains non-taxable. Additionally, assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Consequently, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable.

SMT. VALIBEN NARSHIBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 188/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act, making the gains non-taxable. Additionally, assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Consequently, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable.

SHRI NATVARBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL,HUF,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), SURAT

ITA 184/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act, making the gains non-taxable. Additionally, assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Consequently, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable.

SHRI KANTIBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 192/SRT/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land acquired was not a 'capital asset' as defined under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act, making the gains non-taxable. Additionally, assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Consequently, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable.

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

ITA 156/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions. The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency with earlier years' orders, finding that the grounds raised by the Revenue were similar and had already been decided in favor of the assessee.

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs J K PAPER LTD, SURAT

ITA 157/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions. The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency with earlier years' orders, finding that the grounds raised by the Revenue were similar and had already been decided in favor of the assessee.

POONAM DEVELOPERS,VALSAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VAPI

ITA 15/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition should be on net profit, not gross receipts, and that the 20% profit rate was too high. It directed the Assessing Officer to compute the net profit at 8% of the gross receipts.

M/S. M.D.INFRA DEVELOPERS,SURAT vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

ITA 3058/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed6 May 2022AY 2011-12

M/S. DARRK DIAMONDS,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(1), SURAT

ITA 1662/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: Disposed4 May 2022AY 2006-07Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's stock valuation due to insufficient documentation. However, it found the CIT(A)'s estimation of unaccounted profit to be unrealistic and directed the AO to estimate it at 10% of sales, allowing set-off for the declared Gross Profit.

JAGUBHAI CHHAGNBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 17/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: Heard4 May 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the land was not a 'capital asset' and thus not taxable. Furthermore, the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). Other additions were also substantially reduced or deleted.