Loading ITAT cases…
499 tribunal orders from the Visakhapatnam bench in 2019.
Showing 40 of 499 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of properties in AY 2007-08 was not for the benefit of the members but to facilitate the trust's objectives. The subsequent sale of these properties and deposit of proceeds with the Diocese, along with the fact that the anticipated legislation did not materialize, indicated no diversion of income or benefit to individuals. Therefore, invoking Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(g) was not valid, and the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld. Regarding AY 2011-12, the Tribunal found that Section 115BBC(2) allows for the exclusion of anonymous donations received by trusts established for religious and charitable purposes. The assessee's case, where funds were deposited without misappropriation and used for the trust's objectives, was squarely covered by this provision. The CIT(A)'s finding that there was no misappropriation and that the donations were covered by Section 115BBC(2) was upheld. The revenue's appeals were dismissed. The assessee's cross objections were dismissed in limine due to the delay and lack of a condonation petition.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest on fixed deposits was not justified as the amendment to Section 194A was prospective. The amortization of government securities was also allowed, following the principle of consistency and previous tribunal orders.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of properties in AY 2007-08 was not for the benefit of the members but to facilitate the trust's objectives. The subsequent sale of these properties and deposit of proceeds with the Diocese, along with the fact that the anticipated legislation did not materialize, indicated no diversion of income or benefit to individuals. Therefore, invoking Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(g) was not valid, and the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld. Regarding AY 2011-12, the Tribunal found that Section 115BBC(2) allows for the exclusion of anonymous donations received by trusts established for religious and charitable purposes. The assessee's case, where funds were deposited without misappropriation and used for the trust's objectives, was squarely covered by this provision. The CIT(A)'s finding that there was no misappropriation and that the donations were covered by Section 115BBC(2) was upheld. The revenue's appeals were dismissed. The assessee's cross objections were dismissed in limine due to the delay and lack of a condonation petition.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the cross-objections filed by the assessee were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that estimation of income at 5% of gross contract receipts is reasonable, considering the assessee maintained regular audited books of accounts and paid statutory dues. The lower authorities' orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest on fixed deposits was not justified as the amendment to Section 194A was prospective. The amortization of government securities was also allowed, following the principle of consistency and previous tribunal orders.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for AY 2011-12 was correct as the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable. However, since the beneficiaries admitted the income and paid taxes in AY 2012-13, the deduction was allowed for that subsequent year.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. In the interest of justice and to uphold the principles of natural justice, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a decision on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation, which considered various factors affecting the property's market value, should be adopted for computing capital gains. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in arbitrarily reducing the DVO's valuation by 65% without proper justification.
The Tribunal considered the applications for withdrawal filed by the assessee. As no objection was raised by the Revenue, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide proper explanations for the source of expenditure and the on-money receipts. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were upheld as justified.
The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation, which considered various factors affecting the property's market value, should be adopted for computing capital gains. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in arbitrarily reducing the DVO's valuation by 65% without proper justification.
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A without incriminating material in a completed assessment are unsustainable. It also ruled that the guidelines for seizure of jewellery can be applied to explain the source of jewellery, allowing credit for family members' entitlements.
The Tribunal held that the admission of income for the period after the search date, without supporting material, could not be considered undisclosed income under section 271AAB. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation, which considered various factors affecting the property's market value, should be adopted for computing capital gains. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in arbitrarily reducing the DVO's valuation by 65% without proper justification.
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A without incriminating material in a completed assessment are unsustainable. It also ruled that the guidelines for seizure of jewellery can be applied to explain the source of jewellery, allowing credit for family members' entitlements.
The Tribunal held that the admission of income for the period after the search date was purely an estimation and not supported by incriminating material. Therefore, it did not fall under the purview of undisclosed income as defined in section 271AAB.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide proper explanations for the source of expenditure and the on-money receipts. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were upheld as justified.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D must be restricted to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A without incriminating material in a completed assessment are unsustainable. It also ruled that the guidelines for seizure of jewellery can be applied to explain the source of jewellery, allowing credit for family members' entitlements.
The Tribunal considered the applications for withdrawal filed by the assessee. As no objection was raised by the Revenue, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request.
The Tribunal held that Section 23(1)(a) is applicable only when the property is vacant and no rent is received or admitted. Since the property was let out and actual rent was received as per agreements, the AO's estimation of deemed rent was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including a certificate from the Gram Panchayat, to support the construction of the house. The Tribunal found no reason to disallow the deduction claimed under Section 54F.
The Tribunal held that the total weight of jewellery found (1489.250 grams) was less than the permissible weightage for the family members (1550 grams). Therefore, the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in discarding confirmation letters without issuing summons and examining the creditors. The assessee had discharged the initial burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the jewellery addition, finding that the assessee's holdings were within the limits prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1916, considering the family members. However, the addition for unexplained cash was dismissed as the assessee failed to substantiate its source.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover a large portion of the investments, meaning only a smaller portion was funded by borrowed money. Therefore, the disallowance of interest should be proportionate to the amount invested from borrowed funds.
The Tribunal held that the issue of non-deduction of TDS on rent payments was a new issue not arising from the original assessment order. Therefore, the rectification under Section 154 was not permissible, and the additions made were unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the benefit of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) could only be claimed in the subsequent assessment year (2014-15) because the recipient filed its return of income for that year, not the impugned year (2013-14).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow interest expenditure proportionately to the exempt income (share of profit from the firm) and taxable income (interest received on capital). The assessee's argument for a lesser disallowance was rejected.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) enhanced the disallowance without providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for readjudication.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits in a bank passbook or bank statement cannot be treated as credits in the 'books of an assessee' for the purpose of Section 68. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities, the AO and the CIT(A), erred in brushing aside the Chartered Engineer's valuation report without assigning reasons. The Tribunal found that the AO's approach of adopting SRO value as FMV was incorrect, as guideline values are not necessarily related to the exact premises. The Tribunal referred to its own prior decision and the Karnataka High Court's ruling in N. Govindaraju Vs. ITO, which distinguished between 'full value of consideration' and 'fair market value'. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO should have exercised powers under Section 55(2) to refer the valuation to a valuation officer if he doubted the assessee's adopted FMV, rather than simply adopting the SRO value. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the FMV as certified by the registered valuer's certificate as the cost of acquisition, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and deleting the addition made by the AO. The issue of whether the SRO value is equivalent to FMV was decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2012-13, finding that the assessment was concluded and the AO could not make additions without incriminating material. For AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, the appeals were dismissed as the AO had not made additions and the issues raised were irrelevant to those assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because it did not clearly specify whether the proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty order was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the revision order under Section 263 was unsustainable due to an unreasonable delay of over 9 months in its service to the assessee. The department failed to provide a reasonable explanation for this delay. Consequently, the revision order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have examined the objects of the assessee and conducted necessary inquiries before rejecting the 12A registration. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the case was remanded for de novo consideration.