ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — April 2019

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made in the absence of exempt income. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions was upheld. The revenue's appeals for AY 2013-14 to 2015-16 were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was defective due to the incorrect assessment year and had not been corrected despite opportunities. Consequently, the departmental appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal agreed that the expenditure was necessary for the business operations. However, it found the assessee's method of booking expenses through sub-contractors to be not in order. The Tribunal considered a 30% disallowance to be reasonable.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made in the absence of exempt income. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions was upheld. The revenue's appeals for AY 2013-14 to 2015-16 were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits rather than passing an ex-parte order solely due to the assessee's non-appearance. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not calling for a remand report, especially since the assessee failed to produce written agreements with foreign agents. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made in the absence of exempt income. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions was upheld. The revenue's appeals for AY 2013-14 to 2015-16 were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, directing the AO to allow statutory allowances from the estimated income and to treat machinery rent and insurance claim as business receipts. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, following its own prior decisions in the assessee's case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be allowed to explain stock differences with genuine transactions and that the Assessing Officer should verify these. Some explanations were accepted, while others required adjustments.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was vague as it did not clearly specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the notice was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not calling for a remand report, especially since the assessee failed to produce written agreements with foreign agents. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the property as on 01.04.1981 should be accepted at Rs. 25,00,000. The Tribunal reasoned that the Assessee supported its valuation with an approved valuer's report and considered the property's locational advantages. The AO rejected the valuation report without assigning reasons or examining the valuer. The Tribunal found that the guideline value is not the sole determinant of capital gains and the AO did not provide evidence to show the FMV was lower than Rs. 25,00,000. Thus, the CIT(A)'s order on this point was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Regarding the improvement expenditure of Rs. 4,50,000 incurred in FY 1982-83, the Tribunal held that it should be allowed. Despite the lack of formal agreements or payment details, the Tribunal considered the age of the expenditure (over 30 years), the amount involved, and the nature of the Assessee's income. It found no reason to disbelieve the claim, especially since the AO did not make inquiries with the contractor. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld. Concerning the improvement expenditure of Rs. 5,60,000 in FY 2010-11, the Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was reasonable. While the Assessee had furnished details during the appeal hearing, these were not provided to the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this ground and allowed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made in the absence of exempt income. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions was upheld. The revenue's appeals for AY 2013-14 to 2015-16 were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made in the absence of exempt income. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions was upheld. The revenue's appeals for AY 2013-14 to 2015-16 were dismissed.

The Tribunal agreed that the expenditure was necessary for the business operations. However, it found the assessee's method of booking expenses through sub-contractors to be not in order. The Tribunal considered a 30% disallowance to be reasonable.

The Tribunal agreed that the expenditure was necessary for the business operations. However, it found the assessee's method of booking expenses through sub-contractors to be not in order. The Tribunal considered a 30% disallowance to be reasonable.

The Tribunal agreed that the expenditure was necessary for the business operations. However, it found the assessee's method of booking expenses through sub-contractors to be not in order. The Tribunal considered a 30% disallowance to be reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the property as on 01.04.1981 should be accepted at Rs. 25,00,000. The Tribunal reasoned that the Assessee supported its valuation with an approved valuer's report and considered the property's locational advantages. The AO rejected the valuation report without assigning reasons or examining the valuer. The Tribunal found that the guideline value is not the sole determinant of capital gains and the AO did not provide evidence to show the FMV was lower than Rs. 25,00,000. Thus, the CIT(A)'s order on this point was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Regarding the improvement expenditure of Rs. 4,50,000 incurred in FY 1982-83, the Tribunal held that it should be allowed. Despite the lack of formal agreements or payment details, the Tribunal considered the age of the expenditure (over 30 years), the amount involved, and the nature of the Assessee's income. It found no reason to disbelieve the claim, especially since the AO did not make inquiries with the contractor. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld. Concerning the improvement expenditure of Rs. 5,60,000 in FY 2010-11, the Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was reasonable. While the Assessee had furnished details during the appeal hearing, these were not provided to the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this ground and allowed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, directing the AO to allow statutory allowances from the estimated income and to treat machinery rent and insurance claim as business receipts. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, following its own prior decisions in the assessee's case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to add peak credit for Axis Bank deposits, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this ground. For the unsecured loan, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have given the AO an opportunity to examine additional evidence and therefore remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as it was barred by limitation without any explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding no reason to interfere. The inconsistent pleas of the assessee, the failure to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the cash received from his wife, and the fact that the return was filed beyond the due date preventing the claim of business loss were key factors.

The Tribunal held that since the Section 263 order was quashed by the ITAT, the consequential order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 was also cancelled. Consequently, the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was infructuous, and the AO lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the reopening of assessment beyond four years was invalid as the revenue failed to demonstrate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. On merits, the Tribunal found the assessee entitled to the full deduction claimed under Section 10AA.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition for excess stock was incorrect as the CIT(A) had properly addressed the issues. Regarding the deficit cash, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the addition of the amount admitted as income by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that details of taxes paid by the payees were submitted for the first time before it. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for examination of these details and a decision in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that the date of acquisition for calculating capital gains should be the date of the oral agreement, not the date of the sale deed registration, as the assessee had established rights over the property from the initial agreement and substantial payment. Therefore, the gain was to be treated as long-term capital gain.

The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) without striking out the irrelevant portion is invalid. This is because the assessee must be clearly informed of the specific charge to have a proper opportunity to defend themselves.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty imposed was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that while some objects were for mutual benefit, the amended objects included charitable activities beneficial to the public at large, such as promoting medical education, organizing awareness campaigns, and medical camps. Therefore, the registration under Section 12AA was granted.

The tribunal considered the appeal by the revenue and cross objections by the assessee regarding the disallowance of cash payments for vacant sites. The core issue was the applicability of Section 40A(3) to these transactions.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because the AO did not strike off the irrelevant columns, making the charge ambiguous. Consequently, the penalty imposed was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that since the order of the Pr. Commissioner under Section 263 was not challenged by the assessee, the Assessing Officer had no option but to follow it. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal, even on merits.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure was reasonable and allowable. It noted that the sub-contractor admitted receipt and filed his return, and even if he didn't personally perform the work, the assessee was obligated to incur such maintenance costs.

The Tribunal found the disallowance of Rs. 8.00 lakhs to be excessive. It restricted the disallowance to Rs. 4.00 lakhs, considering it reasonable and justifiable in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal found that the DVO had correctly ascertained the property's value after considering all relevant materials, including the civil dispute. The CIT(A) had also considered the assessee's objections and confirmed the Assessing Officer's order.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or establish the creditworthiness of the donors for the gift amount.

The Tribunal held that as per the CBDT circular, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs are not maintainable unless an exception is made. No such exception was made by the department.

The Tribunal held that as per the CBDT circular, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs are not maintainable unless an exception is made. No such exception was made by the department.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee provided the necessary breakup of receivables and that the pricing was adjusted for the extended credit period. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, relying on previous decisions where similar adjustments were not made for debt-free companies.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The dismissal was due to the revenue's failure to prosecute the appeal by bringing the legal heirs of the deceased assessee on record.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine due to its defective nature and the failure to rectify the defects. The assessee's cross-objections were rendered infructuous and dismissed.