ITAT Surat Judgments — April 2023

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. On merits, it held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for Section 54B exemption, overruling the Assessing Officer's objections regarding agricultural expenses, investment timeline, and land classification.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's submission that the income from sundry creditors was offered for taxation in AY 2020-21. If confirmed, no addition should be retained for AY 2018-19 to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had made substantial payments towards the new residential property within three years of the sale of the old property, even though the sale deed was executed later. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal allowed the exemption under Section 54.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It noted that the assessee purchased the land and showed the sale consideration at Rs. 885/- per square meter. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that they had paid excess stamp duty. Upon perusal of the State Government/Jantri rate, the Tribunal confirmed that the jantri rate for Revenue Survey No. 339 was Rs. 465/- per square meter, as reflected in the rate list. Therefore, taking cognizance of the jantri rate, the Tribunal determined the total value of the land as per the Jantri value to be Rs. 56,11,155/-. The difference between this Jantri value and the consideration shown by the assessee and his co-owners was Rs. 17,61,155/-. The assessee's share of this difference was calculated at Rs. 4,40,288/-. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to this extent only. The ratio decidendi is that the Jantri rate, as a government-mandated valuation, should be considered for determining the fair market value, and any addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) should be based on the difference between the consideration and this Jantri value, not necessarily the higher stamp duty paid or the DVO's valuation if it deviates significantly from the Jantri rate without proper justification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing details of the lender, including PAN, bank statements, and proof of repayment. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not conduct independent investigation and relied solely on third-party information. Consequently, the addition on account of unsecured loan and alleged commission was deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding transport expenses and interest paid to three parties, subject to verification by the Assessing Officer. However, the disallowance on machinery salary expenses and interest expenses under Section 57 were upheld.

The Tribunal held that loans from minor children are not valid contracts and upheld their addition. However, it directed the deletion of additions for loans from the grandfather and wife, finding their creditworthiness and source of funds sufficiently explained. The addition for the loan from the brother was upheld due to insufficient evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing complete details of commission payments and salary expenses. Since the Assessing Officer did not bring any adverse material on record and the provided details were sufficient, the disallowances were not justified.

The Tribunal held that employer's contribution to provident fund and ESIC, if paid before the due date of filing the return of income, should be allowed as a deduction. However, employee's contribution to provident fund and ESIC, even if paid late, is disallowed as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that employer's contribution to provident fund and ESIC, if paid before the due date of filing the return of income, should be allowed as a deduction. However, employee's contribution to provident fund and ESIC, even if paid late, is disallowed as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit on suppressed turnover at specific rates for bullion and jewellery, considering the nature of the business and historical profit margins. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding these estimations.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish a complete correlation between unsecured loans taken, loans given, and the interest income earned. Therefore, the deduction for interest expenses was allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not plead their case and the CIT(A) did not pass an order on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to plead their case before the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A)'s order was not passed on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it was not intentional. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit on suppressed turnover at specific rates for bullion and jewellery, considering the nature of the business and historical profit margins. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding these estimations.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit on suppressed turnover at specific rates for bullion and jewellery, considering the nature of the business and historical profit margins. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding these estimations.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit on suppressed turnover at specific rates for bullion and jewellery, considering the nature of the business and historical profit margins. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding these estimations.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit on suppressed turnover at specific rates for bullion and jewellery, considering the nature of the business and historical profit margins. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding these estimations.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit on suppressed turnover at specific rates for bullion and jewellery, considering the nature of the business and historical profit margins. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding these estimations.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit on suppressed turnover at specific rates for bullion and jewellery, considering the nature of the business and historical profit margins. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding these estimations.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's severe depression and mental health issues supported by a medical certificate. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, finding the cause for delay reasonable and not intentional. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order as it was not decided on merits and restored all grounds of appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that income earned as dividend or interest from other cooperative societies is allowable for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). For the other disallowance, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the details and pass an order.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be added to the income, not the entire amount. Following precedent, the addition was restricted to 6% of the impugned purchases.

The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as it was due to a miscalculation. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 147 beyond four years, without new tangible material, was not justified, citing a jurisdictional High Court ruling. Consequently, the additions made in the assessment order were rendered invalid.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid in some instances, while in others, they were not. It also ruled on the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA for various projects, allowing some claims and disallowing others based on the specific facts and prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid in some instances, while in others, they were not. It also ruled on the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA for various projects, allowing some claims and disallowing others based on the specific facts and prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid in some instances, while in others, they were not. It also ruled on the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA for various projects, allowing some claims and disallowing others based on the specific facts and prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid in some instances, while in others, they were not. It also ruled on the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA for various projects, allowing some claims and disallowing others based on the specific facts and prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid in some instances, while in others, they were not. It also ruled on the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA for various projects, allowing some claims and disallowing others based on the specific facts and prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed time limit of 21 months under Section 153(1) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed as being void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed time limit of 21 months under Section 153(1) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed as being void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed time limit of 21 months under Section 153(1) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed as being void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed time limit of 21 months under Section 153(1) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed as being void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed time limit of 21 months under Section 153(1) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed as being void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed time limit of 21 months under Section 153(1) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed as being void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed time limit of 21 months under Section 153(1). Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed as being void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid in some instances, while in others, they were not. It also ruled on the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA for various projects, allowing some claims and disallowing others based on the specific facts and prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed time limit of 21 months under Section 153(1) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed as being void ab initio.

The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be convincing and constituting sufficient cause. It held that the assessee was not negligent and had actively participated in the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the delay was condoned.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had no obligation to file a return of income as there was no taxable income. The bank statement for the relevant period showed no credit of the alleged loan amount. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271F was not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be sufficient and demonstrating reasonable diligence. The appeals were then remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be sufficient and demonstrating reasonable diligence. The appeals were then remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be sufficient and demonstrating reasonable diligence. The appeals were then remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be sufficient and demonstrating reasonable diligence. The appeals were then remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be sufficient and demonstrating reasonable diligence. The appeals were then remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if the Rs. 5,00,000/- receipt related to the assessee's HUF. If substantiated, no addition would be made.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer with a direction to give effect to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kamal Kishore Kalia & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. once it is passed. The assessee had filed an undertaking to abide by that decision.