ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal held that the issue of cash deposits and loans/advances needed to be considered collectively with the sources of finance business, collections, and withdrawals. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration. Additions for land purchase and gold purchase were confirmed due to lack of evidence, and deductions were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to substantiate claims regarding the source of cash deposits or the nature of expenditures. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of cash deposits and loans/advances needed to be considered collectively with the sources of finance business, collections, and withdrawals. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration. Additions for land purchase and gold purchase were confirmed due to lack of evidence, and deductions were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to explain the cash deposits and the lack of evidence supporting his claims rendered the additions by the AO and CIT(A) unsustainable. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the non-provision of seized material in time. For cash deposits, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO to consider peak credit instead of total deposits. The addition for house renovation expenditure was upheld due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own previous rulings in the assessee's own case. It directed the AO to verify the eligibility period for deduction under Section 80IA.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own previous rulings in the assessee's own case. It directed the AO to verify the eligibility period for deduction under Section 80IA.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own previous rulings in the assessee's own case. It directed the AO to verify the eligibility period for deduction under Section 80IA.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to explain the cash deposits and the lack of evidence supporting his claims rendered the additions by the AO and CIT(A) unsustainable. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to explain the cash deposits and the lack of evidence supporting his claims rendered the additions by the AO and CIT(A) unsustainable. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to explain the cash deposits and the lack of evidence supporting his claims rendered the additions by the AO and CIT(A) unsustainable. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the non-provision of seized material in time. For cash deposits, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO to consider peak credit instead of total deposits. The addition for house renovation expenditure was upheld due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the non-provision of seized material in time. For cash deposits, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO to consider peak credit instead of total deposits. The addition for house renovation expenditure was upheld due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the non-provision of seized material in time. For cash deposits, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO to consider peak credit instead of total deposits. The addition for house renovation expenditure was upheld due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the non-provision of seized material in time. For cash deposits, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO to consider peak credit instead of total deposits. The addition for house renovation expenditure was upheld due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to substantiate claims regarding the source of cash deposits or the nature of expenditures. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to substantiate claims regarding the source of cash deposits or the nature of expenditures. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to substantiate claims regarding the source of cash deposits or the nature of expenditures. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to substantiate claims regarding the source of cash deposits or the nature of expenditures. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to substantiate claims regarding the source of cash deposits or the nature of expenditures. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to substantiate claims regarding the source of cash deposits or the nature of expenditures. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of cash deposits and loans/advances needed to be considered collectively with the sources of finance business, collections, and withdrawals. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration. Additions for land purchase and gold purchase were confirmed due to lack of evidence, and deductions were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of cash deposits and loans/advances needed to be considered collectively with the sources of finance business, collections, and withdrawals. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration. Additions for land purchase and gold purchase were confirmed due to lack of evidence, and deductions were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of cash deposits and loans/advances needed to be considered collectively with the sources of finance business, collections, and withdrawals. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration. Additions for land purchase and gold purchase were confirmed due to lack of evidence, and deductions were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of cash deposits and loans/advances needed to be considered collectively with the sources of finance business, collections, and withdrawals. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration. Additions for land purchase and gold purchase were confirmed due to lack of evidence, and deductions were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of cash deposits and loans/advances needed to be considered collectively with the sources of finance business, collections, and withdrawals. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration. Additions for land purchase and gold purchase were confirmed due to lack of evidence, and deductions were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own previous rulings in the assessee's own case. It directed the AO to verify the eligibility period for deduction under Section 80IA.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the withdrawals were used for business purposes. Consequently, the claim for set-off of business loss against capital gains was disallowed.

The Tribunal found that the comparables selected by both the TPO and the assessee were functionally divergent. Therefore, the matter was restored to the TPO/AO to conduct a proper transfer pricing study and determine the ALP after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs are not maintainable before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs are not maintainable before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the comparables selected by both the TPO and the assessee were functionally divergent. Therefore, the matter was restored to the TPO/AO to conduct a proper transfer pricing study and determine the ALP after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that since the entire payment was made to the resident father and there was no direct payment to the non-resident sons, the provisions of Section 195 of the Income Tax Act were not applicable. The revenue failed to establish that the payment had gone to the non-residents.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was unable to explain the source of the remaining investment even before it. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 1,68,000/- was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was invalid because it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision that such ambiguity violates principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a chance to present her case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, accrued interest must be offered to tax, regardless of actual receipt. The evidence found during the survey supported the charging of interest on advances.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, accrued interest must be offered to tax. The assessee's claim of not charging interest was contradicted by evidence found during the survey.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the estimation of income at 11% on total sales. It also confirmed the deletion of penalty under section 271E for repayment of loan in cash to Shri S. Ramprasad, but dismissed the cross objection for penalty on Rs. 2,15,000 paid to Shri V. Prabhakar Rao.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the estimation of income at 11% on total sales. It also confirmed the deletion of penalty under section 271E for repayment of loan in cash to Shri S. Ramprasad, but dismissed the cross objection for penalty on Rs. 2,15,000 paid to Shri V. Prabhakar Rao.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the estimation of income at 11% on total sales. It also confirmed the deletion of penalty under section 271E for repayment of loan in cash to Shri S. Ramprasad, but dismissed the cross objection for penalty on Rs. 2,15,000 paid to Shri V. Prabhakar Rao.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the estimation of income at 11% on total sales. It also confirmed the deletion of penalty under section 271E for repayment of loan in cash to Shri S. Ramprasad, but dismissed the cross objection for penalty on Rs. 2,15,000 paid to Shri V. Prabhakar Rao.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the estimation of income at 11% on total sales. It also confirmed the deletion of penalty under section 271E for repayment of loan in cash to Shri S. Ramprasad, but dismissed the cross objection for penalty on Rs. 2,15,000 paid to Shri V. Prabhakar Rao.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the estimation of income at 11% on total sales. It also confirmed the deletion of penalty under section 271E for repayment of loan in cash to Shri S. Ramprasad, but dismissed the cross objection for penalty on Rs. 2,15,000 paid to Shri V. Prabhakar Rao.

The Tribunal held that liquidated damages received by the assessee were not part of the core income under the tonnage tax scheme and upheld the addition. However, receipts from sale of scrap, empties, condemned stores, waste oil, and assets were considered core income.

The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the income at 8% of the turnover, considering subsequent assessment years where similar expenses were allowed. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this order.

The Tribunal held that liquidated damages received by the assessee were not part of the core income under the tonnage tax scheme and upheld the addition. However, receipts from sale of scrap, empties, condemned stores, waste oil, and assets were considered core income.