ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — May 2018

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding no evidence to support the claim that the cash deposits were contract receipts. The assessee failed to provide any supporting documentation for the contract works.

The Tribunal held that the provision for standard assets is eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) if the total provision does not exceed the prescribed limits. The issue was remitted back to the AO to re-work the correct deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no concealment of income as the AO accepted the returned income without making additions and failed to establish the nature of the alleged concealment. The admission of additional income was not clearly established as non-voluntary.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the cash loans given and recovered with documentary evidence. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) accepted the explanation without sufficient supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that the AO's method of valuing stock based on gross profit was incorrect when stock records were available. For sundry creditors, the Tribunal found that subsequent confirmations were received and directed the AO to re-examine the issue.