ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — March 2018

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as there was no fresh material and the AO misinterpreted amended provisions for earlier years. It also held that the assessee's R&D facility was approved and the manufactured goods were not mere office machines but specialized electronic equipment, thus eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as there was no fresh material and the AO misinterpreted amended provisions for earlier years. It also held that the assessee's R&D facility was approved and the manufactured goods were not mere office machines but specialized electronic equipment, thus eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on agricultural income, finding no reason to disbelieve the assessee's declared income supported by landholding certificates. For gold and jewellery, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh verification of sources.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on agricultural income, finding no reason to disbelieve the assessee's declared income supported by landholding certificates. For gold and jewellery, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh verification of sources.

The Tribunal held that the AO had indeed failed to properly examine the rental receipts, depreciation claims, and capital loss claims, making the assessment prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT's revision order and remitted all three issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere with the restricted disallowances on expenses and the direction to tax peak credit for cash deposits. The revenue failed to provide tangible material to substantiate its grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's revision order under Section 263 was not justified. The AO's estimation of income was considered reasonable given the lack of proper books, and allowing partner remuneration and interest was also deemed correct based on the partnership deed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's revision order under Section 263 was not justified. The AO's estimation of income was considered reasonable given the lack of proper books, and allowing partner remuneration and interest was also deemed correct based on the partnership deed.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on agricultural income as the assessee provided sufficient evidence. The issue of unexplained gold and jewellery was remitted back to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that revision proceedings under Section 263 are not permissible for search assessments (under Section 153A) if no incriminating material was found during the search. Completed assessments cannot be interfered with based on entries in regular books of accounts without new material.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as there was no fresh material and the AO misinterpreted amended provisions for earlier years. It also held that the assessee's R&D facility was approved and the manufactured goods were not mere office machines but specialized electronic equipment, thus eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the loan was not a gratuitous advance but was given in return for the assessee providing collateral security and personal guarantee for the company's bank loans, thus benefiting the company. Therefore, it did not fall under the purview of deemed dividend.

The Tribunal found discrepancies in the sales tax challans submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a thorough examination of the challans.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment and the Assessing Officer must establish concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Assessing Officer failed to provide adequate opportunity and did not clearly state the basis for levying the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) was prospective and the AO had failed to examine the issue of TDS non-deduction. The assessment order was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of deposits to the extent of Rs. 1,66,47,694/- based on confirmation letters from the Shriram Group of Companies. The addition was therefore restricted.

The Tribunal found discrepancies in the sales tax challans submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a thorough examination of the challans.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 9%, finding no reason to interfere. It also deleted the disallowance of interest expenses, stating that no expenditure was claimed in the profit and loss account and that no further addition can be made once income is estimated.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 9%, finding no reason to interfere. It also deleted the disallowance of interest expenses, stating that no expenditure was claimed in the profit and loss account and that no further addition can be made once income is estimated.

The Tribunal held that 5% of purchase price is a reasonable profit margin for IMFL business, following a coordinate bench decision. However, it upheld the additions for unexplained investment, unsecured loans, and interest income due to lack of substantiating evidence from the assessee.