ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued was vague and invalid because it did not clearly specify the grounds for initiating penalty proceedings. Following established judicial precedents, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was barred by limitation and the assessee had applied for withdrawal without providing valid reasons. Since the Department did not object, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal held that there is no distinction between employees' and employer's contribution to PF, and if the total contribution is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that while the representative had agreed to the addition, the legal position is that deemed dividend is taxable in the hands of the shareholder, not the company. Due to the conflicting positions and the lack of detailed examination by lower authorities, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's institution was primarily a coaching center providing training as per foreign institutions' guidelines, not formal education recognized in India. Therefore, it was not eligible for registration under Section 12AA.

The Tribunal held that there is no distinction between employees' and employer's contribution to PF, and if the total contribution is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of rent paid to V. Chalapathi Rao to the extent it was debited to the P&L account. The issue regarding the payment to K. Subba Rao was remitted back to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that there was no mistake apparent on record in the Assessing Officer's order, as the assessee failed to provide tangible evidence for lease payments. The CIT(A)'s confirmation of the Assessing Officer's order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit are not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that there was no mistake apparent on record in the Assessing Officer's order, as the assessee failed to provide tangible evidence for lease payments. The CIT(A)'s confirmation of the Assessing Officer's order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that shares allotted on 05/04/2013 were exempt as they were from a close relative, and the addition made by the AO was deleted. For shares allotted on 26/03/2014, the Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision and upheld the addition, stating that the previous year's balance sheet should be used for valuation if the current year's balance sheet is not available.

The Tribunal held that the service of notice by affixture was not done in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, lacking independent witnesses and proper endorsement. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were invalid.

The Tribunal held that the deduction for employee's PF contributions is allowable if remitted before the due date of filing the income tax return, following its own precedents and High Court decisions. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) allowing the deduction was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the service of notice by affixture was not done in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, lacking independent witnesses and proper endorsement. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were invalid.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, noting the assessee's difficult circumstances due to her husband's non-cooperation. It found merit in remitting the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment to ensure justice.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. The order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the addition was made under a mistaken impression of consent from the assessee's representative. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination on merits.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vague as it did not clearly specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that there is no distinction between employees' and employer's contribution to PF. If the total contribution is deposited on or before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made.

The Tribunal held that there is no distinction between employees' and employer's contribution to PF. If the total contribution is deposited on or before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made.

The Tribunal held that there is no distinction between employees' and employer's contribution to PF. If the total contribution is deposited on or before the due date of furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance can be made. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as they became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that if employees' PF and ESI contributions are deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return, no disallowance can be made. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance of festival/entertainment and pooja expenses to 50%.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessees, finding merit in the argument that the service of notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory requirement for the validity of an assessment under Section 147. The Tribunal held that Section 292BB of the Act only insulates the Assessing Officer from the proof of service of notice, not from the default in issuing the notice within the prescribed limitation period. Since the records indicated no evidence of the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) within the time limit, the assessment proceedings were deemed invalid and void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order was annulled, and the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed. The Tribunal considered it unnecessary to adjudicate on the merits of the issues raised by the revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on leased assets, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years. The assessee failed to demonstrate ownership transfer, which is a prerequisite for claiming depreciation.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessees, finding merit in the argument that the service of notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory requirement for the validity of an assessment under Section 147. The Tribunal held that Section 292BB of the Act only insulates the Assessing Officer from the proof of service of notice, not from the default in issuing the notice within the prescribed limitation period. Since the records indicated no evidence of the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) within the time limit, the assessment proceedings were deemed invalid and void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order was annulled, and the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed. The Tribunal considered it unnecessary to adjudicate on the merits of the issues raised by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed without communicating the reasons for reopening to the assessee is invalid and void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed without communicating the reasons for reopening to the assessee is invalid and void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to furnish the required statement (Form 24Q - Q4). Consequently, the levy of late fee under Section 234E by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as they became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vague as it did not clearly specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vague as it did not clearly specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed.

The ITAT held that the assessee genuinely paid Rs. 19.80 lakhs, which was acknowledged by the owner, admitted to tax, and subjected to TDS. Since the lower authorities failed to provide comparable evidence that the rent was excessive under Section 40A(2), the disallowance was not justified. The ITAT deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that there is no distinction between employees' and employer's contribution to PF. If the total contribution is deposited on or before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed without communicating the reasons for reopening to the assessee is invalid and void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the defect in the appeal memo was not rectified by the assessee even after several opportunities. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed without communicating the reasons for reopening to the assessee is invalid and void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment for the same issue that was already examined and accepted by the AO constitutes a difference of opinion and is not permissible. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective because the Assessing Officer did not strike out the irrelevant columns, causing confusion for the assessee. Following High Court precedent, the notice was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when the assessee has not earned any exempt income. This decision followed precedents from the Madras High Court and coordinate benches of the ITAT.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as it was supportive of the CIT(A)'s order and no independent grievance was raised.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to furnish the required statement (Form 24Q - Q4). Consequently, the levy of late fee under Section 234E by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that Section 69C is not applicable as the AO did not doubt the source of expenditure, only the proof of purchase. The addition was deleted as there was no evidence to suggest the funds were outside the books.

The Tribunal held that the closing stock value in the books was correct as per purchase bills and that sundry debtors were also correctly reported. The Tribunal found no evidence of unaccounted stock or suppression of trade debtors, following previous High Court and Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal considered the request for withdrawal of the appeal. Since the revenue did not object, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on leased assets, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years. The assessee failed to demonstrate ownership transfer, which is a prerequisite for claiming depreciation.

The Tribunal held that genuine family transactions, especially between spouses for business expediency, should be viewed leniently. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal found that the penalty under Section 271D was not sustainable in law.