ITAT Surat Judgments — August 2022

The Tribunal noted that the purchases were made from unregistered dealers and payments were made to entities linked to the assessee's son, raising doubts about the genuineness of the transactions. However, since the sales were not disputed and the books of account were not rejected, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to estimate the net profit.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if the recipient NBFC included the interest income in its total income and paid tax thereon, based on newly submitted certificates. If verified, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) would survive.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in their decision. The CIT(A) had considered the DVO's report, which assessed the fair market value of the land and the cost of acquisition, and calculated the capital gains accordingly.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the violation of natural justice in the assessment proceedings for share capital. For brokerage charges, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the income was offered in the subsequent year to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the additions made by the AO. It found that there was sufficient incriminating material seized during the search to prove the assessee's involvement in the business of providing accommodation entries.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the additions made by the AO. It found that there was sufficient incriminating material seized during the search to prove the assessee's involvement in the business of providing accommodation entries.

The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied on additions made on estimation. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to explain why the balance amount of Rs. 14,13,160/- from the voluntary disclosure was not accepted, especially since the nature of both amounts was the same. Therefore, the addition was rightly confirmed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had a history of accepted agricultural income and provided supporting documents. Therefore, a blanket disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had a history of accepted agricultural income and provided supporting documents. Therefore, a blanket disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the declared profit percentage was on the higher side and directed the Assessing Officer to estimate income at 8% of the turnover, considering the assessee filed returns under Section 44AD.

The Tribunal held that the undisclosed income was clearly stated to be rent received in cash during the survey proceedings. Therefore, it should be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property' and not as income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 could not be exercised on issues that were not part of the reassessment order but pertained to earlier assessments. The Tribunal also noted that the reassessment order was passed after due application of mind by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of bogus purchases was covered by a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench which disallowed 6% of bogus purchases. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 could not be exercised on issues that were not part of the reassessment order but pertained to earlier assessments. The Tribunal also noted that the reassessment order was passed after due application of mind by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of bogus purchases was covered by a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench which disallowed 6% of bogus purchases. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance of depreciation on goodwill, finding that the assessee's claim was substantiated. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection as not pressed due to amendments in the Act.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance of depreciation on goodwill, finding that the assessee's claim was valid. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection as not pressed.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of bogus purchases was covered by a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench which disallowed 6% of bogus purchases. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that interest income received from Cooperative Banks is allowable under Section 80P(2)(d) as per the Gujarat High Court's ruling. The assessee had correctly claimed deduction only on Co-op Bank Interest and Co-op Dividend.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's pursuit of alternative remedies. It noted that the addition made by the AO was potentially a double addition and that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A)'s estimation of GP at 5% on unverifiable purchases was deemed reasonable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's pursuit of alternative remedies. It noted that the addition made by the AO was potentially a double addition and that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising revisionary jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer had conducted inquiries within the scope of limited scrutiny. The PCIT's attempt to examine issues beyond the limited scope, without proper conversion to full scrutiny, was not sustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for non-genuine contract expenses, finding no defects in the assessee's books and that the AO failed to prove the work was not done. Regarding Section 40A(3), the Tribunal found that no single person received cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000, and the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the disallowance.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's case related to AY 2012-13, and the distance from the municipality was not counted by air. The assessee submitted sale deeds and documents classifying the land as agricultural. The AO had sought inquiry from the Tehsildar regarding the land's character and distance from the municipality. The Tehsildar's initial letter stated the land was agricultural in 2012 but recorded as non-agricultural and vacant presently, lying outside the Municipal Corporation limits at the time of sale and presently, and not cultivated. A subsequent letter stated the land was about 2 KMs from the limits of the Municipal Corporation. However, the Tribunal observed that the Municipal Corporation of Chhindwara was notified in 2014, after the sale. The earlier Tehsildar's letter mentioned a distance of 9.5 KM from the Nagar Palika Parishad. A distance certificate from Land Revenue authorities, filed as additional evidence, certified the land was 9.5 Km's away from the Municipal Corporation in 2012. The Tribunal held that at the time of sale, the land was more than 8 KMs away from the local limits of the Municipal Council, and the population of the village was less than 3000. Therefore, the land could not be treated as a capital asset under section 2(14). The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 5% of the unaccounted job receipts, considering that only the profit element should be taxed. The Tribunal found no merit in further reducing the addition.

The Tribunal found that the DVO's report did not adequately address the assessee's objections and that the registered valuer's report, based on comparable sale instances of non-agricultural land in a developed commercial area, was more reasonable. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to accept the valuation provided by the registered valuer.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and the fee prescribed therein could be levied even without a specific regulatory provision in Section 200A for computation. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was binding.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and the fee prescribed therein can be levied even without a specific regulatory provision in Section 200A for computation. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was followed.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and the fee prescribed therein can be levied even without a specific regulatory provision in Section 200A for computation. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that there was no delay in filing the appeal as the assessee did not receive the CIT(A)'s order until March 3, 2020, and subsequently filed the appeal within the stipulated time. The Tribunal relied on the legal maxim 'Lex non cogit ad impossibilia' and the fact that the ITAT registry did not issue any defect notice for delay.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and the fee prescribed thereunder can be levied even without a specific regulatory provision in Section 200A for computation. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was followed, which dissented with the view that the levy was prospective.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and the fee prescribed thereunder can be levied even without a specific regulatory provision in Section 200A for computation. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was followed, which dissented with the view that the levy was prospective.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and the fee prescribed therein can be levied even without a specific regulatory provision in Section 200A for computation. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and the fee prescribed therein can be levied even without a specific regulatory provision in Section 200A for computation. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and the fee prescribed thereunder can be levied even without a specific regulatory provision in Section 200A for computation. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was followed, which dissented with the view that the levy was prospective.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision and the fee prescribed thereunder can be levied even without a specific regulatory provision in Section 200A for computation. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was followed, which dissented with the view that the levy was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the Rs. 5,00,000/- received for the shed was sale consideration and not income derived from the shed, thus not qualifying for agricultural income exemption. The appeal grounds related to unexplained credit and special tax rates were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee might have proved creditworthiness and genuineness, the identity of the parties from whom unsecured loans were received remained unproven. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision for levying fees for default in filing TDS statements. The fee can be levied even without a specific regulatory provision in Section 200A for computation.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision for levying fees for late filing of TDS statements. The fee can be levied even without a specific regulatory provision in Section 200A for computation.