Loading ITAT cases…
4,057 tribunal orders from the Visakhapatnam bench.
Counted from the judgments of this bench on BharatTax. The figure is how many of them cite each decision.
When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.
Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.
Late fees under section 234E are not applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to section 200A inserting clause (c) was effective from that date.
An employer's delayed remittance of employees' contributions to provident fund (PF) or Employees' State Insurance (ESI) is deductible if the payment is made before the due date for filing the income tax return under section 139(1), applying the provisions of section 43B and notwithstanding section 36(1)(va).
The amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, allowing for the levy of fees under Section 234E, is prospective in nature and applies only from June 1, 2015. Consequently, no fee under Section 234E can be levied for delayed filing of TDS/TCS statements pertaining to quarters prior to this date.
No disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the absence of actual exempt income, as Section 14A relates to the earning of actual income, not notional or anticipated income, thereby declining to apply the CBDT Circular dated 11th May 2014 in such cases.
In non-abated assessments, the Assessing Officer can make additions under section 153A based on books of accounts or documents found during a search but not produced during the original assessment, provided such material is incriminating.
When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.
Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.
A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.
Belated payment of employees' contribution to provident fund is deductible if paid before the due date of filing the return of income.
Belated remittance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF, even if deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is not allowed as a deduction. This disallowance falls under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), as Section 43B applies only to employer's contributions.
Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.
A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.
The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.
The Supreme Court considered the delay in filing an appeal and the appellant's justification for it. The court noted that the appellant's registered address was used for communication and that the postal authorities returned mail. The court referenced its earlier decision in 'Meda Raja Kishor Raghuramy Reddy Vs ACIT' when considering the appellant's case.
For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.
The Supreme Court, by dismissing the department's SLP, affirmed that the supply of reasons to the assessee is mandatory for reassessment proceedings. Failure to provide reasons before proceeding with reassessment renders such proceedings liable to be quashed.
An addition to income based solely on a statement recorded under section 132(4) is not sustainable if that statement has been retracted and there is no corroborative material.
Most recent orders on record, from 2026.
The Tribunal condoned the 223-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient force in the assessee's contentions regarding his father's illness and post-COVID challenges. On merits, the Tribunal noted the undisputed fact that the assessee had not produced any evidence relating to agricultural income, such as purchase of fertilizers, pesticides, sale bills, or details of gross and net agricultural income. The Tribunal agreed with the revenue that evidence of primary agricultural operations is essential and that mere ownership of land is insufficient. The Tribunal also found merit in the revenue's argument that the deposit during the demonetization period, without staggered sales, was suspicious. Consequently, the Tribunal afforded the assessee one more opportunity to furnish all evidence relating to agricultural income and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to pass an order after considering the evidence and providing an effective opportunity to the assessee, keeping in mind various judicial precedents on agricultural income. A cost of Rs. 20,000 was levied on the assessee for the significant delay and lack of evidence before lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the Revenue under Section 148 of the Act is invalid. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of ITO Vs. Sri Sai Kumar Mateti, which followed the principles laid down in Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal and Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal. The Tribunal noted that the Solicitor General had conceded before the Supreme Court that assessments pertaining to AY 2015-16, where notices were issued/proposed beyond the prescribed time limit, would be barred by time. Consequently, all consequent additions made by the AO were deemed void-ab-initio. The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO and allowed the assessee's appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 233 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, following the ratio in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal, 343 CTR 39. This decision was based on the fact that the notices from the CIT(A) were sent to a different email account than the one designated by the appellant. The Tribunal observed that the issues were not discussed on merits by the lower authorities because the appellant had not furnished any information. Since the assessment order and the appellate order did not delve into the merits, it was not possible for the ITAT to adjudicate the issues on merits. Therefore, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to argue the case before the AO, who was directed to consider all arguments afresh and pass an order. However, due to the appellant's non-compliance with notices from the AO/CIT(A), a cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Visakhapatnam District Legal Services Authority within one month.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue concerning an additional ground and had set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. The assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal cited its own decision in Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO (ITA Nos. 255 & 256/VIZ/2026 dated 21.08.2026) as the basis for this decision. The ratio decidendi is that when a Coordinate Bench has set a precedent for dealing with additional grounds and remanding the issue, the Tribunal should follow the same approach to ensure consistency and fairness, provided the assessee is granted an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had failed to substantiate its claims before the lower authorities on consecutive dates. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. The AO was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and the assessee was directed to comply with the notices issued during the remand proceedings. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the assessee, payable to the "AP State Legal Services Authority", with a copy to be produced before the AO as proof of deposit. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that both orders from the lower authorities were ex-parte and the assessee had not been able to substantiate his claim properly. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine the matter afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings. Consequently, the quantum appeal (ITA No. 775/VIZ/2026) is allowed for statistical purposes. For the penalty proceedings (ITA Nos. 776/VIZ/2026 and 777/VIZ/2026), since the quantum appeal has been set aside, the penalty proceedings cannot independently stand. Therefore, these appeals are also set aside to the Assessing Officer, who shall pass appropriate orders in the penalty proceedings considering the outcome of the quantum proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that both orders from the lower authorities were ex-parte and the assessee had not been able to substantiate his claim properly. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine the matter afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings. Consequently, the quantum appeal (ITA No. 775/VIZ/2026) is allowed for statistical purposes. For the penalty proceedings (ITA Nos. 776/VIZ/2026 and 777/VIZ/2026), since the quantum appeal has been set aside, the penalty proceedings cannot independently stand. Therefore, these appeals are also set aside to the Assessing Officer, who shall pass appropriate orders in the penalty proceedings considering the outcome of the quantum proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue concerning an additional ground and had set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. The assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal cited its own decision in Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO (ITA Nos. 255 & 256/VIZ/2026 dated 21.08.2026) as the basis for this decision. The ratio decidendi is that when a Coordinate Bench has set a precedent for dealing with additional grounds and remanding the issue, the Tribunal should follow the same approach to ensure consistency and fairness, provided the assessee is granted an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue concerning an additional ground and had set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. The assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal cited its own decision in Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO (ITA Nos. 255 & 256/VIZ/2026 dated 21.08.2026) as the basis for this decision. The ratio decidendi is that when a Coordinate Bench has set a precedent for dealing with additional grounds and remanding the issue, the Tribunal should follow the same approach to ensure consistency and fairness, provided the assessee is granted an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that both orders from the lower authorities were ex-parte and the assessee had not been able to substantiate his claim properly. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine the matter afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings. Consequently, the quantum appeal (ITA No. 775/VIZ/2026) is allowed for statistical purposes. For the penalty proceedings (ITA Nos. 776/VIZ/2026 and 777/VIZ/2026), since the quantum appeal has been set aside, the penalty proceedings cannot independently stand. Therefore, these appeals are also set aside to the Assessing Officer, who shall pass appropriate orders in the penalty proceedings considering the outcome of the quantum proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously dealt with a similar issue and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire batch of appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine all the issues, including the additional ground relating to leave salary exemption, and decide them in accordance with the law. This decision is to be made after considering the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Venkata Yagneswarasastry Jayanthi v. ITO and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.