ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — May 2019

The Tribunal held that the AO had examined the issues during the original assessment and found no understatement of income or loss to the revenue. Therefore, the CIT's revision order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that there is no bar to filing a fresh application after amending objects, even if a previous application was rejected. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the fresh application on its merits.

The Tribunal held that fixed allowances granted by employers like LIC to meet expenses wholly and necessarily for performance of duties are presumed to be incurred for the purpose granted. It is not necessary for employees to submit detailed accounts for such allowances.

The Tribunal held that disallowing the entire expenditure was arbitrary. Following a precedent, it directed the AO to estimate the income at 20% of gross receipts.

The Tribunal held that fixed allowances granted by employers like LIC to meet expenses wholly and necessarily for performance of duties are presumed to be incurred for the purpose granted. It is not necessary for employees to submit detailed accounts for such allowances.

The Tribunal held that the estimated income is presumed to be available for investments and drawings. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to a telescopic benefit for chit contributions.

The Tribunal held that fixed allowances granted by employers like LIC to meet expenses wholly and necessarily for performance of duties are presumed to be incurred for the purpose granted. It is not necessary for employees to submit detailed accounts for such allowances.

The Tribunal found that an ex-parte order was passed without proper consideration of the adjournment request. In the interest of justice, the order was set aside to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not justified as the seized material was found at a third-party premises and the assessee had provided registered sale deeds and customer confirmations. Furthermore, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of profit estimation as the assessee had offered the income in a subsequent year based on the project completion method.

The CIT(A) found that the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of account but disallowed 10% of the labour expenses for lack of substantiation. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition on sundry creditors after verifying the genuineness of purchases. For gifts, the CIT(A) deleted Rs. 10.00 lakhs and confirmed Rs. 2.00 lakhs, finding the donor had capacity for Rs. 10.00 lakhs from partition funds.

The Tribunal held that salary income accrued to a non-resident seafarer for services rendered outside India shall not be included in total income merely because it has been credited to an Indian bank account. The Assessing Officer was wrong in taxing this income.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not justified as the seized material was found at a third-party premises and the assessee had provided registered sale deeds and customer confirmations. Furthermore, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of profit estimation as the assessee had offered the income in a subsequent year based on the project completion method.

The Tribunal held that reopening beyond four years after a scrutiny assessment requires a finding of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Since no such finding was recorded by the Assessing Officer, the reopening was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present its case and all relevant details before the CIT(E). The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the issue was remitted for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was vague as it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the notice was considered invalid.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was vague as it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty imposed was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance, following the precedent set in similar cases where Form 15G was submitted and the tax was not deductible at source. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.