ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — November 2018

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 149(3) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as void ab initio.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh consideration. The assessee was given one more opportunity to present details, adhering to principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have granted more time to the assessee to file a rectified Form No. 10. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication after considering the revised form.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant details to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 9,80,000/- as unsecured loans. It found that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of these loans before the authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 54F. It reasoned that even if the property was registered in an individual's name, if the funds used for purchase were from the HUF, the property is considered to belong to the HUF, and the beneficial provision should be interpreted liberally.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10AA was a bonafide mistake and allowed it, directing the AO to verify the claim. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal held that no disallowance is permissible in the absence of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the waiver of penal interest and other interest, when incurred and crystallized in the relevant previous year, should be allowed as a business loss. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not made double claims and followed the practice of its own case and other similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's argument that the interest was not claimed as an expense. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the provision for expenses made by the assessee was an ascertained liability and not a contingent one, as the responsibility to process the waste was shifted to the assessee upon lifting the materials. Therefore, these expenses should be considered in relation to the contract receipts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished all necessary details and evidence regarding the share transactions. Since the AO failed to disprove the genuineness of these transactions, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that there is no distinction between employer and employee contributions to PF. If the total contribution is deposited on or before the due date for filing the income tax return under section 139(1), no disallowance can be made.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because it did not specify the exact charge for which the penalty was initiated, violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. The disallowance was restricted to the quantum of dividend income.

The Tribunal held that the waiver of penal interest and other interest, when incurred and crystallized in the relevant previous year, should be allowed as a business loss. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not made double claims and followed the practice of its own case and other similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the waiver of penal interest and other interest, when incurred and crystallized in the relevant previous year, should be allowed as a business loss. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not made double claims and followed the practice of its own case and other similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the waiver of penal interest and other interest, when incurred and crystallized in the relevant previous year, should be allowed as a business loss. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not made double claims and followed the practice of its own case and other similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the provision for expenses made by the assessee was an ascertained liability and not a contingent one, as the responsibility to process the waste was shifted to the assessee upon lifting the materials. Therefore, these expenses should be considered in relation to the contract receipts.

The Tribunal held that the provision for expenses made by the assessee was an ascertained liability and not a contingent one, as the responsibility to process the waste was shifted to the assessee upon lifting the materials. Therefore, these expenses should be considered in relation to the contract receipts.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's argument that the interest was not claimed as an expense. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 149(3) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 149(3) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 149(3) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that there is no distinction between employees' and employer's contribution to PF. If the total contribution is deposited on or before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made.

The Tribunal held that there is no distinction between employees' and employer's contribution to PF. If the total contribution is deposited on or before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made.

The Tribunal held that there is no distinction between employees' and employer's contribution to PF. If the total contribution is deposited on or before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made.

The Tribunal held that there is no distinction between employees' and employer's contribution to PF, and if the total contribution is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made.

The Tribunal held that there is no distinction between employees' and employer's contribution to PF, and if the total contribution is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made.

The Tribunal held that there is no distinction between employee and employer contributions to PF. If the total contribution is deposited on or before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs are not maintainable. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the loans were sanctioned under a tie-up arrangement where both the farmer and the company were principal debtors. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was therefore incorrect.

The ITAT noted the defect in the appeal fee payment and that the assessee did not respond to the registry's notice. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeals as defective.

The ITAT noted the defect in the appeal fee payment and that the assessee did not respond to the registry's notice. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeals as defective.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order as the assessee failed to provide evidence for the remaining unexplained investment of Rs. 3,94,000/- before them.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to cancel the penalty. The Tribunal agreed that the penalty notice was invalid because it failed to specify the exact offense, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require that the assessee be given another opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not conduct sufficient inquiries to disprove the genuineness of the share application money. The assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing confirmations and details of source of income.

The Tribunal held that the restriction on set off of loss under Section 115BBE(2) was introduced from Assessment Year 2017-18 and was not applicable to the impugned Assessment Year 2013-14. Therefore, the rectification order and the CIT(A)'s order were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the loans were sanctioned under a tie-up arrangement where both the farmer and the company were principal debtors. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was incorrect in rejecting the confirmation letters without basis, especially for small loan amounts. The confirmation letters themselves indicated the source of funds for the creditors.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the applicable CBDT circular. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as time-barred without a condonation application.

The Tribunal held that the cash payments were in violation of Section 40A(3) and did not fall under any exceptions under Rule 6DD, as payments to employees are not considered payments to agents. The disallowance of processing charges was also upheld due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in making additions for customer advances. The Tribunal noted that the sales were accepted by the revenue and that KYC norms were not strictly applicable to such transactions under the Sale of Goods Act. The Tribunal also deleted additions made on account of unsecured loans.

The Tribunal held that the cash payments for stamp purchases were not substantiated due to inconsistencies in employee and director statements and the lack of proper documentation. The AO's disallowance of these expenses was upheld.

The Tribunal held that Section 54F does not mandate that the sale consideration must be directly utilized for the new asset, nor does it require the purchase to be solely in the assessee's name. The investment made within the stipulated time, even if from a loan, is eligible for deduction.