ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — December 2019

The Tribunal held that the transfer of properties in AY 2007-08 was not for the benefit of the members but to facilitate the trust's objectives. The subsequent sale of these properties and deposit of proceeds with the Diocese, along with the fact that the anticipated legislation did not materialize, indicated no diversion of income or benefit to individuals. Therefore, invoking Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(g) was not valid, and the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld. Regarding AY 2011-12, the Tribunal found that Section 115BBC(2) allows for the exclusion of anonymous donations received by trusts established for religious and charitable purposes. The assessee's case, where funds were deposited without misappropriation and used for the trust's objectives, was squarely covered by this provision. The CIT(A)'s finding that there was no misappropriation and that the donations were covered by Section 115BBC(2) was upheld. The revenue's appeals were dismissed. The assessee's cross objections were dismissed in limine due to the delay and lack of a condonation petition.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest on fixed deposits was not justified as the amendment to Section 194A was prospective. The amortization of government securities was also allowed, following the principle of consistency and previous tribunal orders.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of properties in AY 2007-08 was not for the benefit of the members but to facilitate the trust's objectives. The subsequent sale of these properties and deposit of proceeds with the Diocese, along with the fact that the anticipated legislation did not materialize, indicated no diversion of income or benefit to individuals. Therefore, invoking Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(g) was not valid, and the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld. Regarding AY 2011-12, the Tribunal found that Section 115BBC(2) allows for the exclusion of anonymous donations received by trusts established for religious and charitable purposes. The assessee's case, where funds were deposited without misappropriation and used for the trust's objectives, was squarely covered by this provision. The CIT(A)'s finding that there was no misappropriation and that the donations were covered by Section 115BBC(2) was upheld. The revenue's appeals were dismissed. The assessee's cross objections were dismissed in limine due to the delay and lack of a condonation petition.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the cross-objections filed by the assessee were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance for AY 2011-12 was correct as the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable. However, since the beneficiaries admitted the income and paid taxes in AY 2012-13, the deduction was allowed for that subsequent year.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest on fixed deposits was not justified as the amendment to Section 194A was prospective. The amortization of government securities was also allowed, following the principle of consistency and previous tribunal orders.

The Tribunal held that estimation of income at 5% of gross contract receipts is reasonable, considering the assessee maintained regular audited books of accounts and paid statutory dues. The lower authorities' orders were set aside.

The Tribunal considered the applications for withdrawal filed by the assessee. As no objection was raised by the Revenue, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request.

The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A without incriminating material in a completed assessment are unsustainable. It also ruled that the guidelines for seizure of jewellery can be applied to explain the source of jewellery, allowing credit for family members' entitlements.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide proper explanations for the source of expenditure and the on-money receipts. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were upheld as justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide proper explanations for the source of expenditure and the on-money receipts. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were upheld as justified.

The Tribunal considered the applications for withdrawal filed by the assessee. As no objection was raised by the Revenue, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request.

The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A without incriminating material in a completed assessment are unsustainable. It also ruled that the guidelines for seizure of jewellery can be applied to explain the source of jewellery, allowing credit for family members' entitlements.

The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A without incriminating material in a completed assessment are unsustainable. It also ruled that the guidelines for seizure of jewellery can be applied to explain the source of jewellery, allowing credit for family members' entitlements.

The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation, which considered various factors affecting the property's market value, should be adopted for computing capital gains. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in arbitrarily reducing the DVO's valuation by 65% without proper justification.

The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation, which considered various factors affecting the property's market value, should be adopted for computing capital gains. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in arbitrarily reducing the DVO's valuation by 65% without proper justification.

The Tribunal held that the admission of income for the period after the search date was purely an estimation and not supported by incriminating material. Therefore, it did not fall under the purview of undisclosed income as defined in section 271AAB.

The Tribunal held that the admission of income for the period after the search date, without supporting material, could not be considered undisclosed income under section 271AAB. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation, which considered various factors affecting the property's market value, should be adopted for computing capital gains. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in arbitrarily reducing the DVO's valuation by 65% without proper justification.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. In the interest of justice and to uphold the principles of natural justice, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a decision on merits after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D must be restricted to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A).