ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — May 2021

The Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court's decision, stating that provisions of Section 200A are prospective. Therefore, the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was held to be unsustainable.

The Tribunal followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court, holding that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective. Therefore, the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was unsustainable.

The Tribunal, following the Karnataka High Court's decision, held that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective. Therefore, the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was unsustainable.

The Tribunal, following the Karnataka High Court's decision, held that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective. Therefore, the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was unsustainable.

The Tribunal, following the Karnataka High Court's decision, held that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective. Therefore, the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.10,08,315/- on account of on-money payment for plot purchase. The Tribunal found that the seized loose sheets were rough notes and lacked corroborative evidence to prove actual cash payment over and above the registered sale deed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. Regarding the addition of Rs.29,10,000/- for gold bars, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that telescopic benefit was rightly allowed, as the gold bars were related to the company and purchased from undisclosed income declared by the company. Similarly, for the addition of Rs.33,00,000/- in cash and Rs.44,60,590/- for gold jewellery, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly allowed telescopic benefit from income declared by the assessee and the company, or applied Board Circular No.1916. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s orders and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to consider the assessee's explanation and the entire material together. The addition made by the AO was unsustainable as the notes did not clearly pertain to the assessee company.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred by not considering the assessee's explanation and the entire contents of the scribbling pad together. The Tribunal found that the AO had enhanced gross receipts and treated them as 100% undisclosed profits without sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.10,08,315/- on account of on-money payment for plot purchase. The Tribunal found that the seized loose sheets were rough notes and lacked corroborative evidence to prove actual cash payment over and above the registered sale deed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. Regarding the addition of Rs.29,10,000/- for gold bars, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that telescopic benefit was rightly allowed, as the gold bars were related to the company and purchased from undisclosed income declared by the company. Similarly, for the addition of Rs.33,00,000/- in cash and Rs.44,60,590/- for gold jewellery, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly allowed telescopic benefit from income declared by the assessee and the company, or applied Board Circular No.1916. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s orders and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.10,08,315/- on account of on-money payment for plot purchase. The Tribunal found that the seized loose sheets were rough notes and lacked corroborative evidence to prove actual cash payment over and above the registered sale deed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. Regarding the addition of Rs.29,10,000/- for gold bars, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that telescopic benefit was rightly allowed, as the gold bars were related to the company and purchased from undisclosed income declared by the company. Similarly, for the addition of Rs.33,00,000/- in cash and Rs.44,60,590/- for gold jewellery, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly allowed telescopic benefit from income declared by the assessee and the company, or applied Board Circular No.1916. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s orders and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.10,08,315/- on account of on-money payment for plot purchase. The Tribunal found that the seized loose sheets were rough notes and lacked corroborative evidence to prove actual cash payment over and above the registered sale deed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. Regarding the addition of Rs.29,10,000/- for gold bars, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that telescopic benefit was rightly allowed, as the gold bars were related to the company and purchased from undisclosed income declared by the company. Similarly, for the addition of Rs.33,00,000/- in cash and Rs.44,60,590/- for gold jewellery, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly allowed telescopic benefit from income declared by the assessee and the company, or applied Board Circular No.1916. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s orders and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.10,08,315/- on account of on-money payment for plot purchase. The Tribunal found that the seized loose sheets were rough notes and lacked corroborative evidence to prove actual cash payment over and above the registered sale deed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. Regarding the addition of Rs.29,10,000/- for gold bars, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that telescopic benefit was rightly allowed, as the gold bars were related to the company and purchased from undisclosed income declared by the company. Similarly, for the addition of Rs.33,00,000/- in cash and Rs.44,60,590/- for gold jewellery, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly allowed telescopic benefit from income declared by the assessee and the company, or applied Board Circular No.1916. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s orders and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the Revenue's appeal. After considering the merits, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, particularly concerning the application of Section 44AD.

The Tribunal allowed the admission of additional evidence, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 33,000/- in the Chief Minister's Welfare Fund. The case was remanded back to the AO for a fresh decision considering this new evidence.

The Tribunal held that since the sales were already offered as revenue receipt and taxed, they could not be added again as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the surge in sales due to demonetization to be reasonable.

The Tribunal held that brought forward business losses can be set off against short-term capital gains arising from the sale of depreciable assets, as the income, though taxed under capital gains, is in the nature of business income. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arose.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order in case of unforeseen circumstances.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Liberty was granted to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee availing the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Department issuing Form No. 3.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as infructuous and the assessee's cross-objection as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek recall if unforeseen circumstances arise.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obliged to decide the appeal on merits. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide the appeal on merits. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee availing the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the department issuing the relevant form.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. This was granted with liberty to seek recall of the order if unforeseen circumstances arise.