ITAT Surat Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal held that the creation of a statutory bad debts reserve by the assessee, as mandated by the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, should be considered a provision for bad and doubtful debts for deduction purposes. It also found that the issue of statutory debt reserve was not properly considered in earlier proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the creation of a statutory bad debts reserve by the assessee as per the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act is a valid provision for bad and doubtful debts. It also found that the issue of statutory debts reserve was not properly considered in earlier proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the creation of a statutory bad debts reserve by the assessee as per the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act is a valid provision for bad and doubtful debts. It also found that the issue of statutory debts reserve was not properly considered in earlier proceedings.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that the issue was covered by the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) 2016 filed by the director of the company, which was accepted by the Principal CIT and Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the mistake of the Authorized Representative as a sufficient cause and emphasizing the principle of advancing substantial justice. The appeal was admitted for hearing on its merits.

The Tribunal noted that the issue is covered against the assessee by the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. GSRTC. However, considering a pending SLP before the Supreme Court and a similar order by a co-ordinate bench, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that documents seized from a third party without corroborative evidence cannot be used against the assessee. The CIT(A) had correctly noted that the seized documents were not in the assessee's handwriting, not signed by him, and no direct link or inquiry was established with the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable as it was based on a mere change of opinion, with no new tangible material. The issues raised in the reopening were already considered in the original assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable as it was based on a mere change of opinion, with no new tangible material. The issues raised in the reopening were already considered in the original assessment order.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer to examine the conditions of Section 10AA and the SEZ Act. For the cross-objection, the Tribunal also remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with another opportunity to explain the facts.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss arising from a loan taken for acquiring capital assets should be treated as a capital loss and adjusted against the asset's cost, allowing depreciation. Regarding interest on income tax refund, the AO was directed to verify if the interest was withdrawn and, if so, not include it in total income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer, finding that the assessee independently entered into and completed the land deal. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer, finding that the assessee independently entered into and completed the land deal. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as it was based on a change of opinion. Consequently, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA was deleted, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as it was based on a change of opinion. Consequently, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA was deleted, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as it was based on a change of opinion. Consequently, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA was deleted, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as it was based on a change of opinion. Consequently, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA was deleted, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as it was based on a change of opinion. Consequently, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA was deleted, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as it was based on a change of opinion. Consequently, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA was deleted, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as it was based on a change of opinion. Consequently, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA was deleted, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as it was based on a change of opinion. Consequently, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA was deleted, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.

The Tribunal quashed the enhancement made by the CIT(A) for lack of a show cause notice. However, it upheld the Assessing Officer's estimation of profit, finding no evidence from the assessee to justify its lower declared profit or the reasons for it.

The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer/CPC to verify the facts and grant credit for TDS reflected in Form 26AS. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and consider the jurisdictional High Court's decision.

The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer/CPC to verify the facts and grant credit for TDS reflected in Form 26AS. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and consider the jurisdictional High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment were bad in law as they were based on guesswork, lacked standalone basis for the current assessment year, and showed a non-application of mind. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was flawed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on purchases as the assessee had proved the entire material was exported and the AO had ignored crucial evidence. Regarding cash credits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for most creditors, and the AO had made additions based on limited adverse findings.

The Tribunal held that the addition for partner's capital under Section 68 was liable to be set aside as the partners' identity and contribution were confirmed, and they had filed a settlement petition. For unsecured loans, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification, especially concerning loans allegedly owned by M D Patel.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated differently from other co-owners in whose cases similar expenses were accepted without addition. Following the principle of equality, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The assessee's counsel stated that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to this submission. Consequently, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision, held that the assessee's claim for bad debt should be allowed without requiring proof that the debt had actually become bad, as the advance was made in the course of business.