ITAT Surat Judgments — December 2022

ME AND MUMMY HOSPITAL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR. 3, SURAT

ITA 41/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Dec 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions without confronting the collected information to the assessee and relied on presumptions. The addition was also found to be inconsistent across assessment years and lacked proper justification.

SYAMA DYNAMIC ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, SURAT

ITA 12/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Dec 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the amounts pertaining to subcontractors and the amounts paid by the assessee before the due date. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

ME AND MUMMY HOSPITAL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.3, SURAT

ITA 40/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Dec 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions without confronting the collected information to the assessee and relied on presumptions. The addition was also found to be inconsistent across assessment years and lacked proper justification.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs SHRI SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA, SURAT

ITA 48/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, with additions for bogus purchases restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, considering the low gross profit rate.

SYAMA DYNAMIC ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, SURAT

ITA 13/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Dec 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the amounts pertaining to subcontractors and the amounts paid by the assessee before the due date. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

ADARSH EDUCATION SOCIETY,SURAT vs ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 240/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Dec 2022AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in concluding the exemption notification was not valid for the assessment year and in overlooking the CBDT circular clarifying that such approvals remain valid until withdrawn. The assessee was also not given an opportunity to be heard on the validity period.

PRAGATI GLASS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. FORMER NAME PRAGATI GLASS PVT. LTD.,BHARUCH vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIR.1, BARODA

ITA 36/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Dec 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) that the expenditure on moulds is capital in nature, allowing depreciation. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify and allow additional depreciation on moulds acquired and used for less than 180 days, as per Section 32(1)(iia).

MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI PROP. SHRUSHTI ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, - 2(3)(8), SURAT

ITA 170/SRT/2021[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, with additions for bogus purchases restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, considering the low gross profit rate.

PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA PROP. OF DEEKSHA TRADING,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT

ITA 169/SRT/2021[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, with additions for bogus purchases restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, considering the low gross profit rate.

VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR PROP. OF ADITI EXPORTS,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

ITA 168/SRT/2021[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, with additions for bogus purchases restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, considering the low gross profit rate.

ITO, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs SHRI MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI, SURAT

ITA 66/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, with additions for bogus purchases restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, considering the low gross profit rate.

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs SHRI PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA, SURAT

ITA 65/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, with additions for bogus purchases restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, considering the low gross profit rate.

SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA PROP. OF BRIGHT DIAMONDS,SURATY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

ITA 167/SRT/2021[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, with additions for bogus purchases restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, considering the low gross profit rate.

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs SHRI VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR, SURAT

ITA 62/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following CBDT circulars. Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, with additions for bogus purchases restricted to 6% of the impugned amount, considering the low gross profit rate.

BALUBHAI MUSTUFABHAI MAHIDA,SURAT vs DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT

ITA 580/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be contradictory regarding the agricultural land status and the Section 54B deduction. The issue of agricultural income was also not properly adjudicated. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

ADITYA PRINTS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CRICLE-1(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 471/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal affirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68. The assessee failed to provide any evidence before the lower authorities or the Tribunal to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.

HOTEL MIRAMAR,DAMAN vs ASSISTNT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI

ITA 129/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that late payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC is not an allowable deduction if not paid on time. This decision follows the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

TAPI DEVELOPERS,TAPI vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SURAT

ITA 244/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee with a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

RAVINDRANTH J. MISHRA,VAPI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7, VAPI

ITA 271/SRT/2022[2010-11]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2022AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the entire contractual receipt cannot be treated as income and directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 8% of the contractual receipts. The Tribunal also directed that TDS credit should be granted if not already given.

CHETAKKUMAR KANUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

ITA 256/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Heard28 Dec 2022AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF and ESIC must be deposited by the due date to be eligible for deduction. The Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services P Ltd. was followed, confirming that late deposit leads to disallowance.

CHIRAG GEMS,SURAT vs ITO, WARD-3(3)(5)

ITA 26/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Dec 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that only the profit element in bogus purchases should be disallowed, not the entire transaction. It directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 6% of the disputed purchases.

JASHUBEN DINESHBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

ITA 255/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Heard28 Dec 2022AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF and ESIC must be deposited by the due date to be eligible for deduction. The Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services P Ltd. was followed, confirming that late deposit leads to disallowance.

ABDUL WAHAB IQBAL RESHAMWALA,SURAT vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT

ITA 243/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed26 Dec 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that both lower authorities passed ex parte orders without giving fair and reasonable opportunities to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to grant a fair opportunity of hearing.

ITO, WARD-3(3)(3), SURAT vs M/S. M D HOUSE BUILD, SURAT

ITA 100/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed26 Dec 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions regarding creditors, noting that payments made in subsequent years were accepted as genuine. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow loan processing charges as revenue expenditure incurred for business purposes.

JOLLY CONTAINERS,DAMAN AND DIU vs DCIT, VAPI

ITA 173/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed26 Dec 2022AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., it is an essential condition for deduction that employee's contribution to PF must be deposited on or before the due date. The assessee's argument relying on a Mumbai Tribunal order was rejected as it was considered to have overlooked the charging provision of Section 36(1)(va).

ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI, VAPI vs VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LIMITED, VAPI

ITA 72/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed26 Dec 2022AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality, as accepted in previous years for the assessee, applies. Therefore, the income from effluent treatment charges received from members is not taxable as business income. The issue of depreciation was also remanded for verification.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT vs DHANPRIYA PRINTS PVT. LTD., SURAT

ITA 52/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unexplained cash credits, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not allow cross-examination of third parties whose statements were relied upon.

BETEX INDIA LIMITED,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

ITA 171/SRT/2021[2008-09]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2022AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unexplained cash credits, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not allow cross-examination of third parties whose statements were relied upon.

M/S. RAJPUTANA STAINLESS LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs THE PRINCIPAL CIT, (CENTRAL), SURAT AT VADODARA, VADODARA

ITA 114/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the issue of late payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESI is squarely covered by the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. Therefore, the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 is upheld.

ITO, WARD-3(2)(4), SURAT vs LATE KHUSHMANBHAI CHNDUBHAI PATEL-HUF, L/H. JIGISHA PATEL, SURAT

ITA 563/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the land sold was not a capital asset as it was situated beyond 8 KM from the municipal limit. Therefore, capital gains provisions were not applicable.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT vs BETEX INDIA LIMITED, SURAT

ITA 174/SRT/2021[2008-9]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2022Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unexplained cash credits, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not allow cross-examination of third parties whose statements were relied upon.

LABDHI JEWELLERD PVT. LTD.,NA

ITA 106/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted inquiries and considered the material before him, making a plausible addition of 10% of the cash deposits. The PCIT's revision was based on a mere difference of opinion, which is not sufficient grounds for revision under Section 263 when the AO has applied his mind and taken a legally sustainable view.

K. N. DIAMOND,NA

ITA 104/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted inquiries and considered the material before him, making a plausible addition of 10% of the cash deposits. The PCIT's revision was based on a mere difference of opinion, which is not sufficient grounds for revision under Section 263 when the AO has applied his mind and taken a legally sustainable view.

HASMUKHBHAI N. PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI

ITA 622/SRT/2018[1998-99]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2022AY 1998-99Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the application under Section 154 was filed after 16 years, making it time-barred and not maintainable. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal, as the application was filed only after prosecution proceedings began and was not based on true facts.

SHRI KETAN NAGINBHAI PATEL,VARACHHA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), SURAT

ITA 164/SRT/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2022AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the balance sheets and ledger accounts submitted by the assessee were fabricated and not properly authenticated. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as the assessee failed to substantiate their claims.

PRAMOD N. PRAJAPATI,SURAT vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI, VAPI

ITA 621/SRT/2018[1998-99]Status: Disposed20 Dec 2022AY 1998-99Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the application under Section 154 was filed after 16 years, making it time-barred and not maintainable. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal, as the application was filed only after prosecution proceedings began and was not based on true facts.

N CORE CABLES,DAMAN vs THE ACIT,VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

ITA 323/SRT/2018[2005-06]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2022AY 2005-06Allowed

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the issue was covered by a co-ordinate bench's decision in their own case for a prior assessment year. Therefore, the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB was allowed.

KALPESH MAFATLAL PATEL,SURAT vs DCIT CENTRAL CERCLE-4, SURAT

ITA 48/SRT/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2022AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal found that the assessee had notarized satakhat deeds with the advocate's wife, which served as direct evidence of the transactions. The assessee's denial was therefore not accepted.

N CORE CABLES,DAMAN vs THE ACIT,VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

ITA 326/SRT/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the issue was covered by a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. Therefore, the appeals were allowed to the extent indicated.

N CORE CABLES,DAMAN vs THE ACIT,VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

ITA 327/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2022AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the issue was covered by a co-ordinate bench's decision in their own case for a prior assessment year. Therefore, the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB was allowed.

N CORE CABLES,DAMAN vs THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

ITA 689/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the issue was covered by a co-ordinate bench's decision in their own case for a prior assessment year. Therefore, the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB was allowed.

KALPESH MAFATLAL PATEL,SURAT vs ACIT CENTRAL CERCLE-4, SURAT

ITA 49/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal found that the assessee had notarized satakhat deeds with the advocate's wife, which served as direct evidence of the transactions. The assessee's denial was therefore not accepted.

N CORE CABLES,DAMAN vs THE ACIT,VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

ITA 324/SRT/2018[2006-07]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2022AY 2006-07Allowed

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the issue was covered by a co-ordinate bench's decision in their own case for a prior assessment year. Therefore, the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB was allowed.

N CORE CABLES,DAMAN vs THE ACIT,VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

ITA 325/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2022AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the issue was covered by a co-ordinate bench's decision in their own case for a prior assessment year. Therefore, the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB was allowed.

M/S AIRLINK COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.1(1)(1), SURAT

ITA 20/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the revision order under Section 263, which formed the basis for the assessment order, was quashed by the Tribunal, the subsequent addition made in the assessment order would not survive. Therefore, the appeal was allowed.

ACIT, VALSAD CIRCLE, VALSAD vs SHEEL ENGINEERS, VALSAD

ITA 727/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was harsh in disallowing expenses solely due to the non-production of bills, especially when the assessee provided alternative evidence and a plausible explanation for the loss of documents. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

SHRI BALAJI J BHAGNURE,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), SURAT

ITA 250/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the NFAC/CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's evidence (Form 26AS) without proper verification. It was established that the entire receipt cannot be taxed, only the profit element. The addition was restricted to the estimated profit of Rs. 29,555/-, which was below the taxable limit.

SHRI VONODKUMAR D.BHARGAVA,BHARUCH vs ITO WARD 1(3), BHARUCH, BHARUCH

ITA 716/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) disallowed the expenditure under Section 69C without issuing a show cause notice. While the assessee failed to conclusively prove the genuineness of the additional cost, the lower authorities also failed to provide evidence of its non-genuineness. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed 50% of the additional cost.

SHRI BHULABHAI PREMABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURAT

ITA 562/SRT/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed15 Dec 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not adequately considered the assessee's contentions regarding the source of funds. The assessee provided evidence of sufficient cash withdrawals and salary income to explain the deposits.

SIDDHI VINAYAK KNOTS & PRINTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs PR. CIT-2, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 58/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was correct. The assessee's failure to deposit employee contributions to PF and ESI within the due dates made the deduction impermissible under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act.