ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — June 2020

The Tribunal held that an appeal requires effective prosecution, not just filing. In the absence of the assessee's appearance or request for adjournment, the appeals were dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided the assessee with another opportunity to present their case, especially since similar issues were decided in the assessee's favor in prior appeals. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the windmills constituted separate undertakings and the sale qualified as a slump sale. Therefore, the capital gains should be computed under Section 50B as directed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's applications for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's applications for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for non-submission of details were convincing, considering the time lapse and circumstances. The Tribunal decided to decide the appeals based on the information available in the financial statements.

The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 to a dead person is invalid and unenforceable in law. Consequently, the subsequent assessment proceedings were annulled.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for non-submission of details were convincing, considering the time lapse and circumstances. The Tribunal decided to decide the appeals based on the information available in the financial statements.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision, holding that the refund of excess amount to M/s. SICL was not a diversion of funds violating Section 13. However, certain expenditure allowances by the CIT(A) were set aside and remitted back to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision, holding that the refund of excess amount to M/s. SICL was not a diversion of funds violating Section 13. However, certain expenditure allowances by the CIT(A) were set aside and remitted back to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision, holding that the refund of excess amount to M/s. SICL was not a diversion of funds violating Section 13. However, certain expenditure allowances by the CIT(A) were set aside and remitted back to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the issue was already considered during the original assessment and no new information was available. Since the notice under Section 148 was quashed, the merits of the addition were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the profit at 15% and rework the closing stock, allowing partial relief to the assessee. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment based on the same facts considered during the original assessment amounted to a change of opinion, which is impermissible. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition based on Section 43B of the Act.

The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) applies only to trading liabilities or expenditures previously claimed and allowed as deductions. Since the principal amount of the loan was never claimed as an expenditure, Section 41(1) was not applicable. The Tribunal also noted that the waiver was in the nature of cash or money, making Section 28(iv) inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition as the expenditure was a continuous activity of the trust, supported by records and previously allowed in scrutiny assessments. The assessee had also spent more than 85% of its income on charitable purposes, making its entire income exempt.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the reason for reopening did not pertain to the assessee. Furthermore, since no addition was made on the issue for which the assessment was reopened, the AO was not permitted to make any other addition.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits, having dismissed it based solely on the prospective nature of an amendment. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues properly, both on merits and regarding the validity of reopening. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.