ITAT Surat Judgments — February 2023

SAI DEVLOPERS,SURAT vs DY.CIT CENTRAL CERCLE-4, SURAT

ITA 122/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require an affected party to be given a sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside.

NAVBHARAT CHARITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, , BHARUCH

ITA 384/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially satisfied the conditions for exemption, and the delay in filing the audit report should not disentitle them to the exemption. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and grant of necessary exemptions.

SHRI JIVRAJBHAI KALUBHAI MIYANI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT

ITA 245/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's pursuit of remedies before the Assessing Officer and his ill health to be bonafide reasons. The appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.

NAVBHARAT CHARITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, , BHARUCH

ITA 385/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, held that denial of exemption solely on the ground of belatedly filed audit report, especially when the trust substantially fulfills other conditions, is not appropriate. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and grant of exemption.

HI-TECH WATER SOLUTION PVT. LTD., ,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1)(1), SURAT

ITA 434/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the one-minute delay in filing the return, citing bonafide reasons due to technical glitches. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine the eligibility of the deduction claim under Section 80-IA(4) and allow it if verified.

SHRI LALJIBHAI KALUBHAI MIYANI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), SURAT

ITA 246/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's pursuit of remedies before the Assessing Officer and his ill health to be bonafide reasons. The appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.

NAVBHARAT CHARITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, , BHARUCH

ITA 383/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, held that denial of exemption solely on the ground of belatedly filed audit report, especially when the trust substantially fulfills other conditions, is not appropriate. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and grant of exemption.

JUPAX DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs ITO WARD 12(2), KOLKATA

ITA 165/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should adjudicate the appeal on merits, as the issues were the same. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to club any pending appeals arising from subsequent assessment orders and decide them together.

M/S. C. J. GROUP & GAJRAS BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,PANVEL, MUMBAI vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH, BHARUCH

ITA 2/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 2,65,555/- as the brokerage paid was considered unreasonable compared to the prevailing market rate. The disallowance of Rs. 23 lakhs was also upheld as the assessee failed to provide evidence for land purchase and the claim was deemed unreasonable.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT vs ANTRIX DIAMOND EXPORTS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 45/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to prove the intention of the assessee to treat the transactions as speculative. The issue was covered by High Court precedents, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeals.

NAKODA LIMITED,SURAT vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT

ITA 377/SRT/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the appeals filed by the assessee are not maintainable in their current format due to the moratorium imposed by the NCLT. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals but granted liberty to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to implead themselves later.

NAKODA LIMITED,SURAT vs THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), SURAT

ITA 45/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the appeals filed by the assessee are not maintainable in their current format due to the moratorium imposed by the NCLT. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals but granted liberty to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to implead themselves later.

NAKODA LIMITED,SURAT vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT

ITA 12/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the appeals filed by the assessee are not maintainable in their current format due to the moratorium imposed by the NCLT. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals but granted liberty to the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to implead themselves later.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,SURAT, SURAT vs ANTRIX DIAMOND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

ITA 46/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to prove the intention of the assessee to treat the transactions as speculative. The issue was covered by High Court precedents, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeals.

NIRALKUMAR K. SHAH,VALSAD vs ITO, WARD-6,, VAPI

ITA 776/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the commission was paid for the smooth and timely execution of orders, not just for bringing in vendors. It noted that some vendors confirmed the involvement of the commission recipients in sourcing purchases.

PARESHBHAI HARSHADBHAI GOHIL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT

ITA 424/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) (not ex-parte under Section 144) and the assessee had made subsequent compliance, the initial defaults due to the COVID-19 pandemic were excusable. Therefore, the penalties were not justified.

PARESHBHAI HARSHADBHAI GOHIL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT

ITA 425/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) (not ex-parte under Section 144) and the assessee had made subsequent compliance, the initial defaults due to the COVID-19 pandemic were excusable. Therefore, the penalties were not justified.

PARESHBHAI HARSHADBHAI GOHIL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT

ITA 426/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) (not ex-parte under Section 144) and the assessee had made subsequent compliance, the initial defaults due to the COVID-19 pandemic were excusable. Therefore, the penalties were not justified.

PARESHBHAI HARSHADBHAI GOHIL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT

ITA 427/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) (not ex-parte under Section 144) and the assessee had made subsequent compliance, the initial defaults due to the COVID-19 pandemic were excusable. Therefore, the penalties were not justified.

MANSI RAMESHBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT

ITA 400/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order being passed under Section 153A/143(3) accepting the returned income indicated sufficient compliance. The Tribunal also considered the Covid-19 pandemic as a reasonable cause for delayed compliance and directed the deletion of the remaining penalty.

MANSI RAMESHBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT

ITA 402/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order being passed under Section 153A/143(3) accepting the returned income indicated sufficient compliance. The Tribunal also considered the Covid-19 pandemic as a reasonable cause for delayed compliance and directed the deletion of the remaining penalty.

MANSI RAMESHBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT

ITA 403/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order being passed under Section 153A/143(3) accepting the returned income indicated sufficient compliance. The Tribunal also considered the Covid-19 pandemic as a reasonable cause for delayed compliance and directed the deletion of the remaining penalty.

MANSI RAMESHBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT

ITA 401/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order being passed under Section 153A/143(3) accepting the returned income indicated sufficient compliance. The Tribunal also considered the Covid-19 pandemic as a reasonable cause for delayed compliance and directed the deletion of the remaining penalty.

PARESHBHAI HARSHADBHAI GOHIL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT

ITA 430/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) (not ex-parte under Section 144) and the assessee had made subsequent compliance, the initial defaults due to the COVID-19 pandemic were excusable. Therefore, the penalties were not justified.

CHANDRAKANT HARSHADBHAI GOHEL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 423/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) or 272A(1)(d) was not justified when the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) or 153A/143(3) accepting the returned income, implying subsequent compliance was considered sufficient. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) did not have the discretion to partially sustain the penalty.

RADHE RAMESHBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CC-2, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 405/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as the assessment was completed without additions, indicating subsequent compliance was accepted. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had no discretionary power to restrict the penalty and directed the deletion of the remaining penalty.

RADHE RAMESHBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CC-2, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 404/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as the assessment was completed without additions, indicating subsequent compliance was accepted. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had no discretionary power to restrict the penalty and directed the deletion of the remaining penalty.

RADHE RAMESHBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CC-2, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 406/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as the assessment was completed without additions, indicating subsequent compliance was accepted. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had no discretionary power to restrict the penalty and directed the deletion of the remaining penalty.

CHANDRAKANT HARSHADBHAI GOHEL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 419/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) or 272A(1)(d) was not justified when the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) or 153A/143(3) accepting the returned income, implying subsequent compliance was considered sufficient. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) did not have the discretion to partially sustain the penalty.

CHANDRAKANT HARSHADBHAI GOHEL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 420/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) or 272A(1)(d) was not justified when the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) or 153A/143(3) accepting the returned income, implying subsequent compliance was considered sufficient. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) did not have the discretion to partially sustain the penalty.

CHANDRAKANT HARSHADBHAI GOHEL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 417/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) or 272A(1)(d) was not justified when the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) or 153A/143(3) accepting the returned income, implying subsequent compliance was considered sufficient. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) did not have the discretion to partially sustain the penalty.

CHANDRAKANT HARSHADBHAI GOHEL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 418/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) or 272A(1)(d) was not justified when the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) or 153A/143(3) accepting the returned income, implying subsequent compliance was considered sufficient. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) did not have the discretion to partially sustain the penalty.

CHANDRAKANT HARSHADBHAI GOHEL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 421/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) or 272A(1)(d) was not justified when the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) or 153A/143(3) accepting the returned income, implying subsequent compliance was considered sufficient. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) did not have the discretion to partially sustain the penalty.

CHANDRAKANT HARSHADBHAI GOHEL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT, SURAT

ITA 422/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) or 272A(1)(d) was not justified when the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) or 153A/143(3) accepting the returned income, implying subsequent compliance was considered sufficient. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) did not have the discretion to partially sustain the penalty.

PARESHBHAI HARSHADBHAI GOHIL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT

ITA 429/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) (not ex-parte under Section 144) and the assessee had made subsequent compliance, the initial defaults due to the COVID-19 pandemic were excusable. Therefore, the penalties were not justified.

PARESHBHAI HARSHADBHAI GOHIL,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-2, SURAT

ITA 428/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) (not ex-parte under Section 144) and the assessee had made subsequent compliance, the initial defaults due to the COVID-19 pandemic were excusable. Therefore, the penalties were not justified.

HARESHBHAI L RUDAKIYA,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2)(3), SURAT

ITA 169/SRT/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2013-2014Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the minor delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the Supreme Court's directions regarding pandemic-related delays. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de novo adjudication, citing principles of natural justice.

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), SURAT vs M/S NYA INTERNATIONAL,, SURAT

ITA 713/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly considered the evidence provided by the assessee regarding the unsecured loans, including bank statements and ITRs of the lenders, which established their creditworthiness.

SANJAYKUMAR DEVKISHAN PANWAR,,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT, SURAT

ITA 569/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition of 100% of disputed purchases by the AO was not justified as no independent investigation was conducted. Following precedents, the Tribunal directed that the addition should be at 6% of the impugned purchases to account for potential revenue leakage.

SHRI RAJENDRAKUMAR KANTILAL PATEL,SURAT vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

ITA 354/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under section 263 was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that during the assessment proceedings under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer had called for relevant information and documents from the assessee. The assessee had submitted replies, details, and documents in response to the AO's queries. The AO had considered this information, applied his mind, and passed the assessment order. The Tribunal distinguished between a 'lack of inquiry' and an 'inadequate inquiry,' stating that even if an inquiry was inadequate, it would not automatically give the Commissioner jurisdiction under section 263 if the AO had applied his mind. The Tribunal relied on the judgments in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. and Arvind Jewellers (Guj HC), which held that if the AO had considered the material on record and taken a particular view, the mere fact that a different view could be taken should not be the basis for action under section 263. Therefore, the PCIT's finding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue due to a lack of inquiry was found to be incorrect. Consequently, the order passed by the PCIT under section 263 was quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

LATE SHRI BHIMSEN DARBARILAL ARORA,,SURAT vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, SURAT

ITA 1706/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal reduced the addition on bogus purchases from 12.5% to 6% of the purchases. For unexplained cash credits, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for further verification of loan repayments.

HEMANT DHIRUBHAI DESAI,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, SURAT

ITA 191/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The revenue representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

GIRDHARBHAI HARIBHAI GAJERA,SURAT vs ITO(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), SURAT

ITA 143/SRT/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the AO's rejection of the conversion of land into stock-in-trade, confirming the addition as long-term capital gains. However, it allowed an additional ground regarding the valuation of the land, directing the AO to consider a valuation difference within the 10% tolerance limit prescribed by Section 50C.

SHRI SUNNY CHADRAKANT FUDHANAWALA,,SURAT vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIR3(3), SURAT

ITA 271/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had indeed examined the issue of Section 54F exemption during the assessment proceedings. Since the AO had considered the issue and the assessee had provided a reply, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified. The order passed by the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), SURAT vs NYA INTERNATIONAL,, SURAT

ITA 534/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly considered the evidence provided by the assessee regarding the unsecured loans, including bank statements and ITRs of the lenders, which established their creditworthiness.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT, SURAT vs SANJAYKUMAR DEVKISHAN PANWAR,, SURAT

ITA 588/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition of 100% of disputed purchases by the AO was not justified as no independent investigation was conducted. Following precedents, the Tribunal directed that the addition should be at 6% of the impugned purchases to account for potential revenue leakage.

GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD,SURAT vs PR. CIT-3, VADODARA

ITA 178/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and taken a plausible view, as the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

DINESHCHANDRA NARHARISHANKAR UPADHYAY,SURAT vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

ITA 120/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries regarding the nature and usage of the assessee's properties. The PCIT's conclusion that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to lack of inquiry was not sustainable.

NYA INTERNATIONAL,SURAT vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

ITA 57/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, as sufficient inquiries were conducted and the AO's conclusions were within their domain. The PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was found to be invalid.

PUNIT SHANTILAL SHAH,BHARUCH vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARUCH

ITA 128/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Feb 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The tribunal restored the disallowance of business loss to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination on merits, noting that the assessee's consent was disputed and the claim was not verified. However, the disallowance of brokerage expenses was upheld due to the lack of substantiation and the unreasonable amount claimed.