ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — February 2019

The Tribunal found no basis for the AO's estimation of Rs. 30,000 per acre and noted the lack of supporting evidence from the revenue. Following a previous ITAT decision, the Tribunal held that Rs. 15,000 per acre was a reasonable estimation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had neither concealed income nor furnished inaccurate particulars. The entire information was placed before the AO, and the nature of the transaction was debatable. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 20,40,332/- from the cash addition, finding sufficient cash flow to explain the source. Regarding the jewellery, the Tribunal held that it belonged to the assessee's wife and was within the limits prescribed by Board circulars, thus upholding its deletion from the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on surplus funds deposited by the co-operative society, which are not immediately required for its primary business of providing credit facilities, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and its own coordinate bench.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had neither concealed income nor furnished inaccurate particulars. The entire information was placed before the AO, and the nature of the transaction was debatable. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's revision under Section 263 was not sustainable. It reasoned that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues and made a conscious decision to allow the deduction under Section 80P, and any difference of opinion does not constitute an error justifying revision.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to examine the business purpose of advances to partners and the consequent lack of interest disallowance made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal upheld the Pr.CIT's order regarding the chit dividend income and the credit in the Sangham's name, finding insufficient evidence from the assessee. However, it found no error in the Assessing Officer's estimation of fish tank income.

The Tribunal held that the AO incorrectly considered only the Excel sheet beneficial to the revenue while ignoring other evidence. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the CIT(A) as there was no other evidence to support the Revenue's claim of receiving excess consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO incorrectly considered only the Excel sheet beneficial to the revenue while ignoring other evidence. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the CIT(A) as there was no other evidence to support the Revenue's claim of receiving excess consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the society's activities were not in line with its objects and violated Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The transactions were deemed fraudulent and intended for personal gain, thus disentitling the assessee to exemption.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the Managing Partner's illness. It admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that disallowing the entire expenditure was unjustified as some expenditure is necessary for business operations. They directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 10% of the total expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the addition for excessive interest was not justified as similar interest rates were accepted in prior years and after a Section 263 order. Regarding notional interest, the Tribunal found the AO failed to establish the advance, thus reversing the addition.

The Tribunal found that the inordinate delay in filing the appeals could not be condoned. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed at the outset without considering their merits.

The Tribunal found that the time given by the AO was short and the assessee had filed the bank statement. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO to consider the bank statement.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on a technicality without deciding the merits. It was further held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not warranted if no exempt income is earned.

The ITAT had previously quashed the CIT's order under Section 263. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order passed by the AO under Section 144 r.w.s. 263 was rendered non-existent. The CIT(A) correctly appreciated this and decided the appeal accordingly.

The Tribunal found that the inordinate delay in filing the appeals could not be condoned. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed at the outset without considering their merits.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of TDS applicability was not examined by the lower authorities due to a previous ruling. Considering the Supreme Court's decision in Palam Gas Service, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal upheld its earlier order to estimate net profit at 10% on main contracts and 7% on sub-contracts, subject to further deductions. However, it stipulated that the resultant income should not be less than the returned income.

The Tribunal held that the SRO value on the date of the sale agreement should be considered if the agreement was executed prior to registration and advance payment was made. The matter was set aside to the AO to ascertain the SRO value on the date of the agreement.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of Rs. 2.00 lakhs was justified based on the facts. The enhancement by the CIT(A) was made without proper reasoning. Therefore, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and upheld the AO's disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's revision under Section 263 was not sustainable. It reasoned that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues and made a conscious decision to allow the deduction under Section 80P, and any difference of opinion does not constitute an error justifying revision.

The assessee's counsel requested permission to withdraw the appeal, to which the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found no basis for the AO's estimation of Rs. 30,000 per acre and noted the lack of supporting evidence from the revenue. Following a previous ITAT decision, the Tribunal held that Rs. 15,000 per acre was a reasonable estimation.

The Tribunal found no basis for the AO's estimation of Rs. 30,000 per acre and noted the lack of supporting evidence from the revenue. Following a previous ITAT decision, the Tribunal held that Rs. 15,000 per acre was a reasonable estimation.

The Tribunal found no basis for the AO's estimation of Rs. 30,000 per acre and noted the lack of supporting evidence from the revenue. Following a previous ITAT decision, the Tribunal held that Rs. 15,000 per acre was a reasonable estimation.

The Tribunal found no basis for the AO's estimation of Rs. 30,000 per acre and noted the lack of supporting evidence from the revenue. Following a previous ITAT decision, the Tribunal held that Rs. 15,000 per acre was a reasonable estimation.

The Tribunal found no basis for the AO's estimation of Rs. 30,000 per acre and noted the lack of supporting evidence from the revenue. Following a previous ITAT decision, the Tribunal held that Rs. 15,000 per acre was a reasonable estimation.