ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's consistent failure to provide satisfactory explanations or necessary details regarding the TDS receipts.

The Tribunal held that a completion certificate from the local authority is mandatory for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10). Failure to furnish this certificate, even if the project is otherwise completed, leads to the withdrawal of the deduction.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO under Section 40(a)(ia) for purchases was unsustainable and deleted it. The matter regarding the purchase of foundation seeds was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination. The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning EPF contributions paid before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal due to the unexplained delay. It also held that CSR expenses are not allowable under Section 37(1) as per Explanation 2. The issue regarding Section 80IA deduction was not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the final result indicates it was partly allowed.

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

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO under Section 40(a)(ia) for purchases was unsustainable and deleted it. The matter regarding the purchase of foundation seeds was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination. The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning EPF contributions paid before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO under Section 40(a)(ia) for purchases was unsustainable and deleted it. The matter regarding the purchase of foundation seeds was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination. The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning EPF contributions paid before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO under Section 40(a)(ia) for purchases was unsustainable and deleted it. The matter regarding the purchase of foundation seeds was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination. The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning EPF contributions paid before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal held that a completion certificate from the local authority is mandatory for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10). Failure to furnish this certificate, even if the project is otherwise completed, leads to the withdrawal of the deduction.

The Tribunal held that a completion certificate from the local authority is mandatory for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10). Failure to furnish this certificate, even if the project is otherwise completed, leads to the withdrawal of the deduction.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal due to the unexplained delay. It also held that CSR expenses are not allowable under Section 37(1) as per Explanation 2. The issue regarding Section 80IA deduction was not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the final result indicates it was partly allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal due to the unexplained delay. It also held that CSR expenses are not allowable under Section 37(1) as per Explanation 2. The issue regarding Section 80IA deduction was not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the final result indicates it was partly allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal due to the unexplained delay. It also held that CSR expenses are not allowable under Section 37(1) as per Explanation 2. The issue regarding Section 80IA deduction was not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the final result indicates it was partly allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal due to the unexplained delay. It also held that CSR expenses are not allowable under Section 37(1) as per Explanation 2. The issue regarding Section 80IA deduction was not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the final result indicates it was partly allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal due to the unexplained delay. It also held that CSR expenses are not allowable under Section 37(1) as per Explanation 2. The issue regarding Section 80IA deduction was not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the final result indicates it was partly allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal due to the unexplained delay. It also held that CSR expenses are not allowable under Section 37(1) as per Explanation 2. The issue regarding Section 80IA deduction was not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the final result indicates it was partly allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal due to the unexplained delay. It also held that CSR expenses are not allowable under Section 37(1) as per Explanation 2. The issue regarding Section 80IA deduction was not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the final result indicates it was partly allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal due to the unexplained delay. It also held that CSR expenses are not allowable under Section 37(1) as per Explanation 2. The issue regarding Section 80IA deduction was not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the final result indicates it was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not derive any personal benefit from the success fee payment. It was also noted that the assessee had ceased to be a director by the time the invoice was raised and payment was made, making the invocation of Section 2(24)(iv) incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity and dismissed the ground related to it. It also upheld the AO's action of taxing the sale of a residential unit as short-term capital gains and the sale of a property via an agreement to sell coupled with a power of attorney as attracting capital gains tax.

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 under section 139(1), no disallowance can be made.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO 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 Tribunal quashed the penalty notice and the consequent penalty order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not derive any personal benefit from the success fee payment. It was also noted that the assessee had ceased to be a director by the time the invoice was raised and payment was made, making the invocation of Section 2(24)(iv) incorrect.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be insufficient. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal without delving into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits. Following principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

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

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly followed a previous ITAT order that quashed the revision proceedings. Therefore, the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer was rendered invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the exemption claim under section 54F and had allowed it without detailed inquiry. Therefore, the Pr.CIT rightly exercised his powers under section 263 to set aside the assessment order.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order as the assessee had voluntarily accepted the addition before the Assessing Officer and failed to explain the source of investment before the CIT(A) or the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order as the assessee had voluntarily accepted the addition before the Assessing Officer and failed to explain the source of investment before the CIT(A) or the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order as the assessee had voluntarily accepted the addition before the Assessing Officer and failed to explain the source of investment before the CIT(A) or the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that while Article 8 of the DTAA generally exempts shipping profits in the contracting state, the applicability of Article 24 depends on whether the income is taxed on accrual or remittance basis. Since the assessee failed to provide conclusive evidence of income being taxed on accrual basis in Singapore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for further examination.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enables such computation, has prospective effect. Therefore, the demand raised was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 45,47,290/- as unexplained cash credit. The assessee's failure to explain the source of funds and the belated attempt to file a revised return were not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient details regarding the utilization of borrowed funds and the purpose for which they were used. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure was justified.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The AO had taken a possible view supported by a High Court judgment allowing deduction for more than one residential house.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient details regarding the utilization of borrowed funds and the purpose for which they were used. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure was justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient details regarding the utilization of borrowed funds and the purpose for which they were used. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure was justified.

The Tribunal held that TDS under Section 195 is applicable only at the time of payment or credit, not for pending payments or due amounts. Since there was no evidence of flats being handed over in the assessment year, the revision order was set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed due to a delay and lack of a condonation application.