ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — January 2018

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment, finding that the claim for gratuity deduction was incorrect. However, it allowed the appeal regarding the surcharge on fringe benefit tax for co-operative societies, citing a circular. The issue of amortization expenditure was set aside for fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition after the Assessing Officer, through remand reports, verified the reconciliation provided by the assessee. The assessee had explained the difference by crediting income under different heads and offering net income to the P&L account.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment, finding that the claim for gratuity deduction was incorrect. However, it allowed the appeal regarding the surcharge on fringe benefit tax for co-operative societies, citing a circular. The issue of amortization expenditure was set aside for fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment, finding that the claim for gratuity deduction was incorrect. However, it allowed the appeal regarding the surcharge on fringe benefit tax for co-operative societies, citing a circular. The issue of amortization expenditure was set aside for fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment, finding that the claim for gratuity deduction was incorrect. However, it allowed the appeal regarding the surcharge on fringe benefit tax for co-operative societies, citing a circular. The issue of amortization expenditure was set aside for fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment, finding that the claim for gratuity deduction was incorrect. However, it allowed the appeal regarding the surcharge on fringe benefit tax for co-operative societies, citing a circular. The issue of amortization expenditure was set aside for fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) had rejected the application based on the general nature of two objects. The assessee's counsel argued that these objects were amended.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment, finding that the claim for gratuity deduction was incorrect. However, it allowed the appeal regarding the surcharge on fringe benefit tax for co-operative societies, citing a circular. The issue of amortization expenditure was set aside for fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment, finding that the claim for gratuity deduction was incorrect. However, it allowed the appeal regarding the surcharge on fringe benefit tax for co-operative societies, citing a circular. The issue of amortization expenditure was set aside for fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not made a complete inquiry and the assessee had not filed complete details. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the promissory note and cheque were received by the assessee as security for advances made by M/s. First Tek Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Vijetha Constructions for property purchase. The department failed to discharge its burden of proof.

The Tribunal held that additions in search assessments cannot be made without incriminating material if the assessment proceedings were already completed and the time limit for issuing notices had expired. The additions were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions in search assessments cannot be made without incriminating material in cases where the assessment proceedings were already completed before the search. Therefore, additions based solely on returns filed or information already on record, without new incriminating evidence, were not permissible.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that a significant portion of the gold was explained by purchases in earlier years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity.

The Tribunal held that the payment was for the purchase of flats by First Tek Pvt. Ltd. from Vijetha Constructions, and the promissory note was merely a security. Therefore, the conditions for deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) were not met.

The Tribunal held that additions in search assessments cannot be made without incriminating material in cases where the assessment proceedings were already completed before the search. Therefore, additions based solely on returns filed or information already on record, without new incriminating evidence, were not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily rebutted the presumption under Section 292C by providing confirmation letters from M/s. Vijetha Constructions. The revenue failed to establish that the promissory notes represented advances from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are not permissible without incriminating material found during the search. Regarding the land purchase, the Tribunal found that the loose sheet was a 'dumb document' without dates of payment, and the addition was not substantiated by corroborating evidence.

The Tribunal held that the payment was for the purchase of flats by First Tek Pvt. Ltd. from Vijetha Constructions, and the promissory note was merely a security. Therefore, the conditions for deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) were not met.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are not permissible without incriminating material found during the search. Regarding the land purchase, the Tribunal found that the loose sheet was a 'dumb document' without dates of payment, and the addition was not substantiated by corroborating evidence.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are not permissible without incriminating material found during the search. Regarding the land purchase, the Tribunal found that the loose sheet was a 'dumb document' without dates of payment, and the addition was not substantiated by corroborating evidence.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are not permissible without incriminating material found during the search. Regarding the land purchase, the Tribunal found that the loose sheet was a 'dumb document' without dates of payment, and the addition was not substantiated by corroborating evidence.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are not permissible without incriminating material found during the search. Regarding the land purchase, the Tribunal found that the loose sheet was a 'dumb document' without dates of payment, and the addition was not substantiated by corroborating evidence.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it was vague and did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was cancelled.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the amortization of premium on HTM securities, directing the AO to examine the issue and grant relief. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions related to interest on share capital paid to members.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the amortization of premium on HTM securities, directing the AO to examine the issue and grant relief. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions related to interest on share capital paid to members.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. In the interest of justice and natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that carbon credits are capital receipts, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. It also found that the Assessing Officer had made a double addition of Rs. 50 lakhs, which was correctly deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present evidence regarding the initial license fee and to allow the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the matter.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition without examining the detailed explanation provided by the assessee, even if it was offered later. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that for documents marked GVS/3 and GVS/4, the assessee had discharged his burden by providing evidence that the transactions belonged to Smt. S.V. Ratnam. The AO failed to discharge the revenue's burden to verify ownership, thus these additions were deleted. For documents marked GVS/1, the assessee's son's statement and the assessee's failure to dispute the contents led to upholding the additions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was admitted for hearing on merits. The specific decision on the grounds of appeal is not detailed in the provided excerpt, but the case was admitted for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that for initiating proceedings under Section 153C, incriminating material evidencing undisclosed income must be found. Since no such material was found in the assessee's case during the group search, the notice issued under Section 153C was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that for documents marked GVS/3 and GVS/4, the assessee had discharged his burden by providing evidence that the transactions belonged to his aunt. The AO failed to discharge the burden of proving otherwise, thus these additions were deleted. For documents marked GVS/1, the assessee's son's statement confirmed they related to the assessee's money lending business, and the assessee did not dispute this, so these additions were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the transactions recorded in Annexures GVS/3 and GVS/4 belonged to Smt. S.V. Ratnam and not the assessee, deleting the additions made by the AO. However, additions related to Annexure GVS/1 were upheld as they pertained to the assessee's money lending business.

The Tribunal held that the transactions recorded in Annexures GVS/3 and GVS/4 belonged to Smt. S.V. Ratnam and not the assessee, deleting the additions made by the AO. However, additions related to Annexure GVS/1 were upheld as they pertained to the assessee's money lending business.

The Tribunal held that the AO incorrectly computed the cash flow statement by taking zero opening balance, ignoring the assessee's past income declarations and cash balances. The case was remitted back to the AO for de novo consideration.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was unsustainable due to the absence of incriminating material. For AY 2009-10, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that prior period expenses are to be allowed as deduction in the year under consideration, following the decision of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was unsustainable due to the absence of incriminating material. For AY 2009-10, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the unexplained investments in gold and silver should be allowed to be telescoped from the undisclosed income admitted by the assessee in the firms, as no other unaccounted assets were found.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that interest income earned from deposits of surplus business funds should be treated as business income. It also confirmed that venture advances transferred to a sister company and refunds to customers due to contract breaches did not constitute deemed sales.

The Tribunal found no reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limini.