ITAT Surat Judgments — November 2022

The Tribunal held that following the Supreme Court's decision in TRF Limited and CBDT Circular No. 12/2016, a bad debt written off in the assessee's books is allowable if it meets the conditions of Section 36(2), even if recovery efforts are ongoing.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty on undisclosed interest income from nationalised banks as it was a clear case of concealment. However, penalties related to disallowances under Section 80P(2) where income was disclosed were deleted, as they were considered a change of opinion.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted additional evidence for three lenders and that the revenue's representative argued these should be examined by the Assessing Officer. For the remaining four lenders, the Tribunal found merit in the revenue's argument that genuineness and creditworthiness were not proven.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition for unexplained purchases to 25% of the amount from non-compliant creditors. It also confirmed the deletion of additions for foreign commission expenses and advance against purchases, finding the CIT(A)'s reasoning to be correct.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty on undisclosed interest income from nationalised banks as it was a clear case of concealment. However, penalties related to disallowances under Section 80P(2) where income was disclosed were deleted, as they were considered a change of opinion.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee is a small seasonal trader dealing primarily in cash. Considering the nature of the business, the Tribunal restricted the addition to the peak credit amount of Rs. 3,51,108, as initially determined by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) correctly invoked Section 263 as the AO failed to examine the investments and the applicability of Section 14A. The assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty on undisclosed interest income from nationalised banks as it was a clear case of concealment. However, penalties related to disallowances under Section 80P(2) where income was disclosed were deleted, as they were considered a change of opinion.

The Tribunal upheld the Pr.CIT's view that the deduction for employee's PF/ESI contribution is allowable only if deposited by the statutory due date, as per the Apex Court ruling. However, it directed the AO to only consider the issue raised by the Pr.CIT and not revisit other aspects of the assessment.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, directing him to provide all available information and evidence to the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide details regarding foreign visits and consent for obtaining information from foreign banks.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the 'saudha chithi' was a 'dumb document' as far as the assessee was concerned. The Tribunal also noted that the land transfer had not taken place as per registered sale deeds, citing relevant High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, directing him to provide all available information and evidence to the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide details regarding foreign visits and consent for obtaining information from foreign banks.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the 'saudha chithi' was a 'dumb document' as far as the assessee was concerned. The Tribunal also noted that the land transfer had not taken place as per registered sale deeds, citing relevant High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the facts regarding the receipt of full consideration and offering income to tax in AY 2016-17, along with the claim of previously unclaimed TDS, need to be examined by the Assessing Officer. If found correct, the TDS credit should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as the deduction was allowed without proper enquiry. The issue is squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited, which mandates timely deposit of employee's contribution for claiming deduction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, taking a liberal approach due to the assessee being a public sector bank and the cause of substantial justice. The Tribunal also found that the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 201(3).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, taking a liberal approach due to the assessee being a public sector bank and the cause of substantial justice. The Tribunal also found that the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 201(3).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, taking a liberal approach due to the assessee being a public sector bank and the cause of substantial justice. The Tribunal also found that the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 201(3).

The Tribunal held that the AO had made a detailed inquiry and accepted the assessee's plea regarding the Rs. 19.00 lacs deposit, which was impliedly accepted. The PCIT's action was considered a mere change of opinion, which is not a valid ground for revision under Section 263.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's successful application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Both parties retain the liberty to seek restoration if the settlement is not finalized.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, taking a liberal approach due to the assessee being a public sector bank and the cause of substantial justice. The Tribunal also found that the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 201(3).

The Tribunal held that the land was introduced as a business asset, and expenses incurred for development indicated a business intention. The inconsistent treatment of the sale proceeds (by partners individually but declared as capital gain by the firm) further supported the business income classification.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the source of the cash credits as business transactions. The assessee's claims regarding business activity and peak credit were rejected due to lack of supporting documentation.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the assessee company was dissolved prior to the issuance of the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal also found that the deferred consideration was never received by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that a 100% disallowance of purchases was not justified as the assessee might have made purchases from elsewhere. They decided that taxing only the income component is appropriate to prevent revenue leakage.

The Tribunal held that a 100% disallowance of purchases was not justified as the assessee might have made purchases from elsewhere. They decided that taxing only the income component is appropriate to prevent revenue leakage.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that a minor delay of 26 days in filing the return should not disentitle the assessee to the deduction under Section 80IA, especially when there are divergent judicial views and no jurisdictional High Court decision to the contrary.

The Tribunal found the DVO's report to be lacking logic and justification, particularly in suggesting a rate of Rs. 880/- per square meter without proper basis, despite mentioning comparable instances with lower rates and noting the proximity to the railway and bus stand. The Tribunal found the Government approved valuer's report to be more detailed, based on minute details, and supported by various comparable sale instances from 1981, ranging from Rs. 126/- to Rs. 2500/- per square meter. However, considering the entire facts, the Tribunal felt the valuer's suggested value was slightly on the higher side. Therefore, taking a holistic view and considering the reports, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the capital gains by taking the value of land at Rs. 1200/- per square meter and the rate of RCC and wooden structure at Rs. 800/- per square meter. The AO was also directed to allow exemptions under Section 54F and 54EC, which were not disputed. The adjudication of other submissions became academic due to the significant relief granted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted inquiry and applied his mind, making his order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The revisionary order by the Principal CIT was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry and the provision for construction expenses, being a real expense estimated as per the accrual system and paid in the subsequent year, was a valid claim. The PCIT's order was found to be unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the provisions of Section 43B as the GST amount was paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a plausible reason for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Merely stating a chosen date of receipt of the order is insufficient to condone the delay.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation of a typographical error was not credible, especially as no evidence was provided to support the claim. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument that the business activities were doubtful.

The tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.