ITAT Surat Judgments — February 2023

HANSABEN MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

ITA 396/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed10 Feb 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 271(1)(b). It also noted that assessment was completed under Section 143(3)/153A, indicating subsequent compliance was considered sufficient.

HANSABEN MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

ITA 395/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed10 Feb 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 271(1)(b). It also noted that assessment was completed under Section 143(3)/153A, indicating subsequent compliance was considered sufficient.

HANSABEN MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

ITA 397/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed10 Feb 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 271(1)(b). It also noted that assessment was completed under Section 143(3)/153A, indicating subsequent compliance was considered sufficient.

HANSABEN MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

ITA 398/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 271(1)(b). It also noted that assessment was completed under Section 143(3)/153A, indicating subsequent compliance was considered sufficient.

HANSABEN MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

ITA 393/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed10 Feb 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 271(1)(b). It also noted that assessment was completed under Section 143(3)/153A, indicating subsequent compliance was considered sufficient.

HANSABEN MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

ITA 394/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed10 Feb 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 271(1)(b). It also noted that assessment was completed under Section 143(3)/153A, indicating subsequent compliance was considered sufficient.

SHIVAM RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,VALSAD vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

ITA 396/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed10 Feb 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because crucial issues, including those related to survey proceedings, advances received, and construction expenses, were not adequately examined. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT under section 263 was upheld.

NAVINCHANDRA K. PATEL,SURAT vs PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 , SURAT, SURAT

ITA 57/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed10 Feb 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had made adequate inquiries and applied his mind before passing the assessment order. The AO's decision, even if resulting in a loss to revenue, was not erroneous as he adopted a permissible course of action. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order was quashed.

M/S SUMILON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

ITA 87/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had made due inquiries and taken a plausible view, and that the PCIT wrongly invoked Section 263. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order, stating that Section 14A disallowance is not warranted in the absence of exempt income.

HANSABEN MAGANBHAI VAGHASIYA,SURAT vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

ITA 399/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed10 Feb 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 271(1)(b). It also noted that assessment was completed under Section 143(3)/153A, indicating subsequent compliance was considered sufficient.

MRS. DIXABEN JAYESHBHAI PATEL,VAPI vs ITO, WARD-2, VAPI, VAPI

ITA 229/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed10 Feb 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the net profit should not exceed 2% of total turnover, considering the profit already offered by the assessee. The AO was directed to recalculate the addition accordingly.

SHRI KARANBHAI MANJIBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

ITA 27/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed10 Feb 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order was based on the DCIT's recommendation without independent application of mind. The issues raised by the PCIT were not part of the limited scrutiny notice issued during the assessment.

MRS. DAXABEN JAYESHBHAIPATEL,VAPI vs ITO, WARD-2, VAPI, VAPI

ITA 228/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed10 Feb 2023AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the net profit should not exceed 2% of total turnover, considering the profit already offered by the assessee. The AO was directed to recalculate the addition accordingly.

ARHAM PROPERTIES,SURAT vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.3,, SURAT

ITA 214/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Feb 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without granting a sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

DHANESH JAYANTILAL CHOKSHI,VADODARA vs DCIT CPC, BENGALARU

ITA 59/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the employer's contribution to the superannuation fund exceeding Rs. 1.50 lakhs is a perquisite under Section 17(2)(vii) and upheld the adjustment. However, it found merit in the assessee's submission that the disallowance of CMRE was made without seeking details of actual expenditure and directed its deletion.

M/S SACHIN UDYOG NAGAR SAHKARI MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2), SURAT

ITA 439/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Feb 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest income received by a cooperative society from another cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This decision was based on previous judgments of the jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal in the assessee's own case.

ABHINAV SUBHANGBHAI MALAVI,SURAT vs THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALURU

ITA 386/SRT/2022[2021-22]Status: Disposed6 Feb 2023AY 2021-22Withdrawn

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

JAYANTILAL AMBARAM PATEL HUF,SURAT vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX , CIR.2(3), SURAT

ITA 327/SRT/2022[2010-11]Status: Disposed6 Feb 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the addition of long-term capital gain, on which the penalty was levied, was deleted in the assessee's quantum appeal, the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive.

SHITAL REFRIGERATION,BHARUCH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.1(3),, BHARUCH

ITA 369/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed3 Feb 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that while the AO rejected the books without specific defects, the assessee had consistently declared a lower profit in preceding years. The Tribunal reduced the estimated profit from 10% to 8.75% of the total turnover.

HASMUKHBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,VARKHAD vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA

ITA 205/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

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

JAYANTILAL VALLABHBHAI RAMOLIYA,SURAT vs ITO, WARD -3(3)(2), SURAT

ITA 342/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed3 Feb 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of additions related to two specific unsecured loans due to banking channel transfers and repayment in subsequent years. For other expenses, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 25% of the claimed amount.

NAVAPURA URBAN CO-OP CREDIT & CONSUMER SOCIETY LTD.,SURAT vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), SURAT

ITA 353/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed2 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd.

DANG JILLA PARAGLIDING ADVENTURE ASSOCIATION,DANG vs CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 35/SRT/2020[2019-20]Status: Disposed2 Feb 2023AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's bona fide reasons and the interest of justice. The matter was then remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need to follow principles of natural justice and provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.