ITAT Surat Judgments — September 2023

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be sufficient and convincing. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) did not pass an order on merits as per the mandate of the law.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI, even if made under Section 143(1), is squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in 'Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.'. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the assessment order being under Section 143(1) does not render the Supreme Court's judgment inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the CPC's adjustment was mechanical and did not consider the allowability of interest income and expenses. It also noted that additions solely based on Form 26AS entries without verification are not permissible.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A), finding that the seized documents were 'dumb documents' without corroborating evidence. The Tribunal noted that similar additions in the cases of co-owners and purchasers were also deleted by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing details like PAN, addresses, bank statements, and financial statements of the investors. The AO failed to disprove the genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the investors.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive the notice of hearing due to an incorrect email ID, thus violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the order of the NFAC/CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue and accepted the returned income. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal ruled that co-owners who are family members or close relatives, even if not parties to the original agreement, can be eligible for the benefit of the provisos to Section 56(2)(x) if part consideration was paid by other co-owners. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue and accepted the returned income. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal ruled that co-owners who are family members or close relatives, even if not parties to the original agreement, can be eligible for the benefit of the provisos to Section 56(2)(x) if part consideration was paid by other co-owners. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had opted for the lower tax rate and had subsequently filed Form 10IC before the Tribunal. Considering procedural lapses and various judicial precedents, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order was legally fragile due to a violation of natural justice. The PCIT directed the AO to examine an additional issue ('addition of fixed assets') without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard on it.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessee had provided all necessary information and documentation during the assessment proceedings, which were duly verified by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made detailed inquiries and accepted the assessee's claim after due application of mind. The PCIT's view was not the only plausible view, and the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted the necessary inquiries regarding the cash and its utilization, and had taken a plausible view based on the evidence. Therefore, the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal held that since the addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was restored back to the Assessing Officer for further examination, the penalty order had become infructuous and would not survive.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had opted for the lower tax rate and had subsequently filed Form 10IC before the Tribunal. Considering procedural lapses and various judicial precedents, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition as the assessee's business inherently involved substantial cash transactions. The cash deposits were not disproportionate to the turnover, and the assessee had offered cash sales for taxation, thus avoiding double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted enquiries and considered the available information, including the tax audit report and financial statements. The PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was deemed unjustified as the AO had taken a plausible view and the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had made inquiries and formed an opinion. The PCIT's order was quashed as it amounted to substituting his opinion for the AO's, which is not permissible under Section 263.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had restricted the addition based on High Court decisions. The Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's additional ground regarding the validity of the notice issued by a non-jurisdictional officer. The appeal was decided based on these points.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was issued by an Assessing Officer without the requisite jurisdiction. Therefore, the assessment order was void ab initio, and the jurisdictional issue could be raised at any stage.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the IBC, all claims not included in the plan are extinguished. Therefore, the tax liabilities not part of the plan are no longer recoverable from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved by the NCLT, all claims not included in the plan are extinguished and cannot be pursued. Therefore, the tax demands against the assessee for the relevant assessment years stood extinguished.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved by the NCLT, all claims not included in the plan are extinguished and cannot be pursued. Therefore, the tax demands against the assessee for the relevant assessment years stood extinguished.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved by the NCLT, all claims not included in the plan are extinguished and cannot be pursued. Therefore, the tax demands against the assessee for the relevant assessment years stood extinguished.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved by the NCLT, all claims not included in the plan are extinguished and cannot be pursued. Therefore, the tax demands against the assessee for the relevant assessment years stood extinguished.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved by the NCLT, all claims not included in the plan are extinguished and cannot be pursued. Therefore, the tax demands against the assessee for the relevant assessment years stood extinguished.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved by the NCLT under Section 31 of the IBC, all claims not included in the plan are extinguished and binding on all parties, including the Central Government. Therefore, tax dues not part of the plan are extinguished.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the IBC, all claims not included in the plan are extinguished. The Income Tax Department's claim, not being part of the plan, was therefore extinguished, and no proceedings could be continued for such dues.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the IBC, all claims not included in the plan are extinguished. Therefore, the tax liabilities not part of the resolution plan stood extinguished, and the appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the IBC, all claims not included in the plan are extinguished. Therefore, the tax dues owed to the Central Government, not being part of the resolution plan, were also extinguished.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved by the NCLT, all claims not included in the plan are extinguished and cannot be pursued. Therefore, the tax demands against the assessee for the relevant assessment years stood extinguished.

The Tribunal held that if the source of capital contribution is not satisfactorily explained in the hands of the partner, the addition should be made in the hands of the individual partner, not the partnership firm. Since the amount was already taxed in the hands of a partner, taxing it again in the hands of the firm would amount to double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT wrongly exercised his jurisdiction under Section 263. The assessee had not claimed any deductions related to the issues identified by the Pr.CIT, as the income was considered exempt under the principle of mutuality. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income received from co-operative banks, following a precedent set by a coordinate bench. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not clearly indicate whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, or both. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the penalty order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed against the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed against the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserved one more opportunity to contest the appeal on merit as the CIT(A) had not discussed the case's merits and had passed an ex parte order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition for unexplained investment, agreeing that cash sales of bullion offered to tax explained the application of funds. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition for unexplained investment, agreeing that cash sales of bullion offered to tax explained the application of funds. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal, following its own previous orders on similar facts and for the same assessee, directed the Assessing Officer to work out the commission income at the rate offered by the assessee. The additions sustained by the CIT(A) were based on presumptions rather than incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC's order was ex parte and did not consider the assessee's submissions. Principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard, thus the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC's order was ex parte and did not consider the assessee's submissions. Principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard, thus the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made the addition without proper application of mind and without sharing the information with the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) had correctly considered the evidence provided by the assessee, proving the bona fide nature and source of the credit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the supplementary partnership deed, which omitted provisions for partner interest and remuneration, was valid, and the assessee could not be compelled to charge these amounts. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal, following its own previous orders on similar facts and for the same assessee, directed the Assessing Officer to work out the commission income at the rate offered by the assessee. The additions sustained by the CIT(A) were based on presumptions rather than incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the documents found during the survey were 'dumb documents' and the rate mentioned was a proposal for a residential project, not the actual purchase price. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that since the addition forming the basis of the penalty was deleted, the penalty order would not survive. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was affirmed.

The Tribunal held that since the addition in the quantum assessment was ultimately restricted to an ad hoc/estimated basis, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and should be deleted.