ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — February 2018

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It held that STPI registration is sufficient for claiming deduction under Section 10B, and the approval from the Board of Approval is not a mandatory prerequisite, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's petition for condonation of delay. It held that the assessee, being an auditable case and represented by a Chartered Accountant, could not claim bonafide ignorance regarding appeal procedures.

The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a possible view supported by legal precedents regarding income estimation and depreciation. It also found that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries into investments and unsecured loans, and that inadequate inquiry does not warrant revision under Section 263.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It held that STPI registration is sufficient for claiming deduction under Section 10B, and the approval from the Board of Approval is not a mandatory prerequisite, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence of a building existing and being sold along with the vacant land. The sale deeds only mentioned the transfer of vacant land, and an unregistered sale agreement was not considered sufficient proof.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of rebate under Section 88E through a rectification order under Section 154 was outside the scope of Section 154. The issue was considered debatable and required verification, not a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was decided ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. Both parties were heard, and the matter was sent back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal directed the AO to allow credit for advance taxes paid in HUF status to the assessee in their individual capacity, considering the original dates of payment. This was done to provide relief and meet the ends of justice, as the assessment was ultimately made in individual hands.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly invoked jurisdiction as the CIT's revision order directed re-determination of income after affording opportunity. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on estimated income and delete the addition of unsecured loans, finding the creditors' identity, capacity, and genuineness proved.

The Tribunal held that non-furnishing of reasons for reopening the assessment, as required by Section 148 and established by Supreme Court precedent, is fatal to the reassessment. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that benefiting a section of the public, such as students of a particular college, qualifies as an object of general public utility. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to registration under Section 12AA.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the issue afresh after considering the additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that at the stage of granting registration, the CIT(E) should primarily examine if the objects of the society are charitable in nature and if the society is genuine. The genuineness of the society was not doubted, and its objects were charitable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was vague as it did not clearly specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the notice was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to provide any evidence to explain the source of the cash deposits, the addition made by the Assessing Officer as income from unexplained sources was justified. The CIT(A) had also rightly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was vague as it did not clearly specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the notice was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the AO for penalty proceedings was invalid because it was vague and did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, violating the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that an estimation of 4% business profit on gross receipts was reasonable. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-estimate the profit at 4% for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. The payments made within the due date of filing the return under section 139(1) were directed to be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on E-cards was revenue in nature, as it was akin to subscription charges for a multi-level marketing membership. The Revenue failed to prove the CIT(A)'s findings incorrect.

The Tribunal held that benefiting a section of the public, such as students of a particular college, qualifies as an object of general public utility. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to registration under Section 12AA.

The Tribunal found that an estimation of 4% business profit on gross receipts was reasonable. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-estimate the profit at 4% for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the appeals could not be adjudicated due to the unexplained delay and defects. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limini.

The Tribunal held that the appeals could not be adjudicated due to the unexplained delay and defects. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limini.

The Tribunal held that the appeals could not be adjudicated due to the unexplained delay and defects. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limini.

The Tribunal held that the appeals could not be adjudicated due to the unexplained delay and defects. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limini.

The Tribunal observed that while the assessee provided a reconciliation statement, neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had verified it with the books of accounts. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO to verify the reconciliation and the sales to Hindustan Lever Limited.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own previous orders. It held that allocating 10% of husk expenditure to power generation was reasonable and logical.

The Tribunal held that since the share application money was subsequently converted into share capital by allotting shares, it did not partake the character of a loan or deposit. Therefore, Section 269SS was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the conversion expenses were reimbursement of expenditure incurred by the contractor, which did not involve any element of profit and therefore did not attract TDS. Since the recipient admitted the entire amount as income and paid taxes, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's income is not taxable based on the principle of mutuality, as it operates for the benefit of its members. The AO's disallowance was based on an incorrect interpretation of the mutuality concept and the applicability of Section 69-B of the AP Cooperative Societies Act.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had previously directed the AO to consider rental income for only six months in the case of the assessee's son. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation, once treated as part of gross total income, must be allowed as a set off against income from other sources. The unabsorbed depreciation partakes the character of current year's depreciation and can be set off against other heads of income.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow expenses where the assessee failed to prove business expediency or provide supporting evidence, particularly for payments made to former employees or those not in accordance with company resolutions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the alleged sale agreements for cash deposits were not genuine and the cheque deposits were from unexplained sources. The assessee's request for a lower profit estimation was also rejected.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow expenses where the assessee failed to prove business expediency or provide supporting evidence, particularly for payments made to former employees or those not in accordance with company resolutions.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke revision under Section 263 for inadequate inquiry if the AO has conducted an inquiry and is satisfied with the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the information provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow expenses where the assessee failed to prove business expediency or provide supporting evidence, particularly for payments made to former employees or those not in accordance with company resolutions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the addition of Rs. 14 lakhs for cash deposits and Rs. 15,04,218/- for cheque deposits. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the sources of these deposits.

The Tribunal held that the HUF is entitled to the deduction u/s 54F, following a coordinate bench decision where a property acquired in the name of the Karta was allowed for deduction. The property was treated as HUF property as per an MOU.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow expenses where the assessee failed to prove business expediency or provide supporting evidence, particularly for payments made to former employees or those not in accordance with company resolutions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54F for both flats received under the development agreement, as per previous decisions of coordinate benches and High Courts.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that the demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation of fee under Section 234E could not be made for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the late fee levied was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation of fee under Section 234E could not be made for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A was prospective. Therefore, the late fee levied was cancelled.