ITAT Surat Judgments — January 2023

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A, indicating that subsequent compliance was considered good and earlier defaults were ignored. The Tribunal also acknowledged the reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, it indicated subsequent compliance. The Tribunal also considered the COVID-19 pandemic as a reasonable cause for the initial non-compliance, and thus deleted the penalties.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, it indicated subsequent compliance. The Tribunal also considered the COVID-19 pandemic as a reasonable cause for the initial non-compliance, and thus deleted the penalties.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made a reasonable inquiry and taken a possible view in allowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest earned from co-operative banks. Therefore, the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was not valid as the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue were not met.

The Tribunal held that for share capital/premium, the assessee needs to prove the source of the source as per amended provisions of Section 68. For unsecured loans, the amended provisions are not applicable, but the source of cash deposits in lenders' accounts was not properly examined. Therefore, both issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital transactions. The AO's addition was made without properly considering the details provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, it indicated subsequent compliance. The Tribunal also considered the COVID-19 pandemic as a reasonable cause for the initial non-compliance, and thus deleted the penalties.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) accepting the returned income, and the non-compliance was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the penalty was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed after the penalty was levied.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A, indicating that subsequent compliance was considered good and earlier defaults were ignored. The Tribunal also acknowledged the reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) accepting the returned income, and the non-compliance was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the penalty was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed after the penalty was levied.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) accepting the returned income, and the non-compliance was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the penalty was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed after the penalty was levied.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A, indicating that subsequent compliance was considered good and earlier defaults were ignored. The Tribunal also acknowledged the reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A, indicating that subsequent compliance was considered good and earlier defaults were ignored. The Tribunal also acknowledged the reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, it indicated subsequent compliance. The Tribunal also considered the COVID-19 pandemic as a reasonable cause for the initial non-compliance, and thus deleted the penalties.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, it indicated subsequent compliance. The Tribunal also considered the COVID-19 pandemic as a reasonable cause for the initial non-compliance, and thus deleted the penalties.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, it indicated subsequent compliance. The Tribunal also considered the COVID-19 pandemic as a reasonable cause for the initial non-compliance, and thus deleted the penalties.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, it indicated subsequent compliance. The Tribunal also considered the COVID-19 pandemic as a reasonable cause for the initial non-compliance, and thus deleted the penalties.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital transactions. The AO's addition was made without properly considering the details provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A, indicating that subsequent compliance was considered good and earlier defaults were ignored. The Tribunal also acknowledged the reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A, indicating that subsequent compliance was considered good and earlier defaults were ignored. The Tribunal also acknowledged the reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A, indicating that subsequent compliance was considered good and earlier defaults were ignored. The Tribunal also acknowledged the reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal as mandated by Section 250(6) and that the assessee was not given a sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal as mandated by Section 250(6) and that the assessee was not given a sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed the decision of the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court and other Tribunal benches which held in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous in taxing the amount in the wrong year, it was not prejudicial to the revenue as the tax rate was the same for both assessment years. Therefore, the PCIT's order invoking section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition pertaining to unsecured loans should be excluded. For the remaining bogus purchases, the Tribunal directed the AO to sustain the addition at 6% of the amount, considering the income component of the disputed transaction to prevent revenue leakage.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits. This was due to the ex-parte and non-speaking nature of the CIT(A)'s order, and the failure to examine basic facts.

The Tribunal held that taxing the entire credit or restricting addition on a peak basis was not justified. Instead, only the profit element from the business activities generating the bank credits should be considered.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A). It was held that a penalty order passed against a deceased person, without proper notice to legal heirs, is void ab initio and cannot be cured under Section 292B.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10CCB is a procedural and directory provision. Since the form was filed before the processing of the return under Section 143(1) and the assessee had been allowed the deduction in previous years, the claim for deduction under Section 80IA was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justifiable because Rule 37BB, which mandates the submission of these forms, was amended effective from April 1, 2016, and thus not applicable to the assessment year 2016-17. Furthermore, the assessee had a reasonable cause for the failure due to a bona fide belief that the forms were not required for imports not chargeable to tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside as it was an ex parte and non-speaking order, and the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders through documents like PAN, ITRs, bank statements, and confirmations. The AO failed to bring any cogent material to controvert this evidence.

The Tribunal held that no addition should be made based on deeming provisions when the assessee could not find tenants for vacant properties, even after engaging brokers. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal and did not provide a sufficient opportunity for hearing, especially since written submissions were filed. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and the assessee had raised grounds regarding lack of opportunity. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after considering the documents and explanations to be furnished by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer obtained approval for a draft assessment order with additions from the JCIT, but failed to incorporate these additions in the final assessment order. This omission made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer obtained approval for a draft assessment order with additions from the JCIT, but failed to incorporate these additions in the final assessment order. This omission made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer obtained approval for a draft assessment order with additions from the JCIT, but failed to incorporate these additions in the final assessment order. This omission made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer obtained approval for a draft assessment order with additions from the JCIT, but failed to incorporate these additions in the final assessment order. This omission made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer obtained approval for a draft assessment order with additions from the JCIT, but failed to incorporate these additions in the final assessment order. This omission made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer obtained approval for a draft assessment order with additions from the JCIT, but failed to incorporate these additions in the final assessment order. This omission made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer obtained approval for a draft assessment order with additions from the JCIT, but failed to incorporate these additions in the final assessment order. This omission made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below erred in disallowing the claim as the audit report was filed shortly after the return and before the processing of the return under Section 143(1). The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim after verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions without giving the AO an opportunity to examine the assessee's explanations and evidence. The CIT(A) also erred in allowing Section 54B benefit without proper documentary evidence before the AO.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made inquiries regarding the disclosed income by issuing a notice under Section 142(1) and considering the assessee's reply. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing bonafide reasons and the principle of substantial justice. The appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made adequate inquiries regarding the Section 54 deduction and that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below erred in disallowing the claim as the audit report was filed shortly after the return and before the processing of the return under Section 143(1). The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim after verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was justified as the assessee provided sufficient evidence, including repayment of sundry creditors in the subsequent year which was accepted by the AO. The rejection of books of accounts by the AO lacked statutory conditions.