ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — February 2020

The Tribunal held that the seized material, consisting of estimations of government revenue from sand mining and general cost estimations, did not contain any incriminating evidence or have a bearing on the assessee's income. Therefore, the notices issued under Section 153C were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that taxing the share income in the hands of the individual assessee would amount to double taxation, as the income was already taxed in the hands of the society. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in taxing the share income.

The Tribunal held that the CPC has no power to make adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. If adjustments are necessary, the Assessing Officer must provide prior intimation.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the appeal should be adjudicated on merits as an e-appeal was subsequently filed. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the e-appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The core of the dispute revolved around the valuation of the built-up area received by the assessee in exchange for their land, which was subject to reassessment.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment without new material, after the Assessing Officer had already examined and allowed the share trading loss, constituted a change of opinion and was not valid. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding car loan interest.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vague and invalid because it failed to specify the exact ground for initiating penalty proceedings. Consequently, the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CPC has no power to make adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. If adjustments are necessary, the Assessing Officer must provide prior intimation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The core of the dispute revolved around the valuation of the built-up area received by the assessee in exchange for their land, which was subject to reassessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The core of the dispute revolved around the valuation of the built-up area received by the assessee in exchange for their land, which was subject to reassessment.

The Tribunal held that the seized material, consisting of estimations of government revenue from sand mining and general cost estimations, did not contain any incriminating evidence or have a bearing on the assessee's income. Therefore, the notices issued under Section 153C were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the seized material, consisting of estimations of government revenue from sand mining and general cost estimations, did not contain any incriminating evidence or have a bearing on the assessee's income. Therefore, the notices issued under Section 153C were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the seized material, consisting of estimations of government revenue from sand mining and general cost estimations, did not contain any incriminating evidence or have a bearing on the assessee's income. Therefore, the notices issued under Section 153C were unsustainable.

The assessee's counsel requested permission to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to this request.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without considering all facts. It was necessary to verify the status of the land and whether any development had taken place. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.

The Tribunal held that capital subsidy is a capital receipt and reduces the cost of the asset, not the income. Since the subsidy was not received and capitalized in the relevant year, it could not be brought to tax under Section 115JB. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's intention from the outset was to profit from the resale of the land after conversion and plotting. Therefore, the activity constituted an adventure in the nature of trade, and the income was rightly assessed as business income.

The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, finding that the delay was due to genuine reasons such as financial problems arising from the Telangana agitation and the voluntary filing of the return without notice. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for a lower penalty rate under Section 271AAB(1)(a) as the return was filed within the extended due date and the nature of anonymous donations was explained as per Section 115BBC. The delay in filing the appeal for AY 2014-15 was condoned due to sufficient cause.

The Tribunal held that since the DTAA did not have a specific article for Fees for Technical Services (FTS), such income should be taxed under the business profits article (Article 7). As the assessee had no PE in India, the income was not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that since there was no specific article for Fees for Technical Services (FTS) in the DTAA, such payments should be taxed under the business profits article. As the assessee had no PE in India, the income was not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for a lesser penalty rate under Section 271AAB(1)(a) as the return was filed within the extended due date and the anonymous donations were explained in accordance with Section 115BBC.

The Tribunal held that once full consideration is received and possession is given, the transfer is complete. Therefore, capital gains should be taxed in the year the consideration was received, not the year the property was subsequently sold by the purchaser. The assessment year 2007-08 was incorrect for taxing the capital gains in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC u/s 143(1)(a) was beyond its scope and deleted it. It also deleted the enhancement made by the CIT(A) as it was done without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is required to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them solely for non-prosecution. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to provide necessary evidence to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of cash payments made to directors, finding that banking facilities were available and the directors resided in an area with banking access. The assessee's case did not fall under any exceptions to Section 40A(3).

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of cash payments made to directors, finding that banking facilities were available and the directors resided in an area with banking access. The assessee's case did not fall under any exceptions to Section 40A(3).

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

The Tribunal held that the transfer of property was completed in 2004 when full consideration was received and possession was handed over. Therefore, capital gains should be taxed in the hands of the assessee based on the 2004 transaction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence regarding payments to shipping agents of non-resident ship owners. The matter was remitted back to the AO to examine the issue in light of CBDT Circular 723.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the paper book filed by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the advances received were in the nature of trade advances for the purchase and supply of chillies, and therefore, not taxable as deemed dividend. However, the matter was remitted to the AO for verification of the genuineness of these transactions.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not possess 12A registration, the Assessing Officer was justified in treating it as an Association of Persons (AOP) and taxing its income at the maximum marginal rate (MMR). This decision was confirmed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee to subsidiaries is not an international transaction if no cost is incurred by the parent company. Regarding instant coffee sales, the Tribunal found that the TPO erred in comparing prices on an SKU basis and that the weighted average difference was within permissible limits.

The Tribunal held that simply being a signatory to the sale deed does not confer ownership rights on the assessee. The property was absolutely owned by the assessee's mother, who inherited it from her own mother. Therefore, the capital gains should be taxed in the hands of the mother, not the assessee.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim of a 10% share, upholding the 50% co-ownership. However, it directed that only the investment made in the impugned assessment year should be taxed under Section 69B.