ITAT Surat Judgments — October 2022

The Tribunal held that the entire credit in the bank account cannot be added as undisclosed income without considering the debit entries, especially when the assessee claimed the deposit was from bank withdrawals. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the actual date of payment of the employee's PF contribution of Rs. 2,56,206/-. If the payment was indeed made before the statutory due date, appropriate relief should be granted.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in expecting the assessee to prove a negative and in making additions without sufficient evidence. The Tribunal noted the lack of investigation by the AO and the absence of credit in the assessee's bank statements, directing the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that it was within the grace period allowed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal held that the NFAC/CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals based on a mistaken assumption about the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and restored both appeals to the NFAC/CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that it was within the grace period allowed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal held that the NFAC/CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals based on a mistaken assumption about the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and restored both appeals to the NFAC/CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the liability was for a capital asset which was never put to use and no depreciation was claimed, Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act was not applicable. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were due to different treatments or debatable issues, not concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the submissions of both parties.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, following the Supreme Court's directions. However, it dismissed the appeal on merits, acknowledging that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, a 100% disallowance was not justified. Following precedent, the addition for bogus purchases was restricted to 6% of the impugned amount.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, a 100% disallowance was not justified. Following precedent, the addition for bogus purchases was restricted to 6% of the impugned amount.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, a 100% disallowance was not justified. Following precedent, the addition for bogus purchases was restricted to 6% of the impugned amount.

The Tribunal held that the AO's rejection of books of account was not justified as it was based on assumptions and arbitrary selection of data. The Tribunal found the assessee's method of calculating consumption to be more scientific and affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, disallowing 100% was not justified. Following precedent, it directed the AO to sustain the addition at 6% of the impugned purchases to account for the income component.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, disallowing 100% was not justified. It directed that the addition should be sustained at 6% of the impugned purchases to account for the income component.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, a 100% disallowance was not justified. Following precedent, the addition for bogus purchases was restricted to 6% of the impugned amount.

The Tribunal held that the AO's rejection of books of account was not justified as it was based on assumptions and arbitrary selection of data. The Tribunal found the assessee's method of calculating consumption to be more scientific and affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that registration under Section 12AA is a mandatory condition for claiming exemption under Section 11. Since the assessee was denied registration due to non-compliance, it was not entitled to the exemption.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, but on merits, it held that the disallowance was justified as the employee's contribution was not deposited by the due date as per statutory provisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the pandemic. However, it dismissed the appeals on merits, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P Ltd. vs CIT-I, which held that timely deposit of employee contributions is mandatory for deduction.