ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — March 2022

The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B, including the insertion of Explanation 2, are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, these amendments are not applicable to the assessment year 2018-19.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked when the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Following Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, including Explanation 2, is prospective and applies from Assessment Year 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, it cannot be applied retrospectively to the Assessment Year 2018-19.

The Tribunal held that for Assessment Year 2010-11, the investment in a residential house outside India was eligible for exemption under Section 54F, as the amendment requiring investment within India was prospective and applicable from AY 2015-16 onwards.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should have been provided with a copy of the remand report to rebut its contents, as per the principles of natural justice. Since this opportunity was not given, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not providing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to explain the discrepancy and not calling for a remand report. The matter was remanded for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question (prior to the amendment effective from 1st April 2021), it was sufficient for employee contributions to be remitted within the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question (prior to the amendment effective from 1st April 2021), it was sufficient for employee contributions to be remitted within the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question, if employee's contribution was remitted within the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance was not justified. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, though clarificatory, was effective from a later date.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to be heard before the Pr.CIT, considering the circumstances of the COVID pandemic. The revisional order was set aside for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question (prior to the amendment effective from 1st April 2021), it was sufficient for employee contributions to be remitted within the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question (prior to the amendment effective from 1st April 2021), it was sufficient for employee contributions to be remitted within the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question (prior to the amendment effective from 1st April 2021), it was sufficient for employee contributions to be remitted within the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question (prior to the amendment effective from 1st April 2021), it was sufficient for employee contributions to be remitted within the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question, if employee's contribution was remitted within the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance was not justified. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, though clarificatory, was effective from a later date.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question (prior to the amendment effective from 1st April 2021), it was sufficient for employee contributions to be remitted within the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question (prior to the amendment effective from 1st April 2021), it was sufficient for employee contributions to be remitted within the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to reinstate if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme application is not accepted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of income, finding it reasonable given the assessee's failure to produce substantial evidence for receipts from IVF and non-IVF patients, despite rejecting the AO's higher estimation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that compensation received under the RFCTLARR Act is exempt from income tax as per CBDT Circular and Section 96 of the Act. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the addition was deleted in the substantive assessment of the company based on satisfactory evidence, a protective assessment on the same amount in the hands of the assessee was not sustainable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, if employee's contribution to PF & ESI was remitted within the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities was not justified.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, if employee's contribution to PF & ESI was remitted within the due date of filing the income tax return, the disallowance was not justified. The amendments clarifying this position were effective from a later date.

The Tribunal held that interest on share capital paid to members is an allowable deduction, following previous ITAT decisions. It also held that amortization of premium on government securities held under HTM category is allowable as per CBDT instructions.

The Tribunal held that Section 69 of the Act cannot be invoked when investments are disclosed in the books of accounts and offered for taxation. Regarding cash sales during demonetisation, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash balance and the receipt of Specified Bank Notes was not illegal as per the relevant Act.

The Tribunal held that the unregistered sale agreements were not reliable, especially when registered sale deeds were available. It found no buyer-seller relationship between the seller and the assessee company, making the protective assessment unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question (prior to the amendment effective from April 1, 2021), it was sufficient if employee contributions were remitted within the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question (prior to the amendment effective from April 1, 2021), it was sufficient if employee contributions were remitted within the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question (prior to the amendment effective from April 1, 2021), it was sufficient if employee contributions were remitted within the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the unregistered sale agreements were not reliable, especially when registered sale deeds were available. It found no buyer-seller relationship between the seller and the assessee company, making the protective assessment unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question (prior to the amendment effective from April 1, 2021), it was sufficient if employee contributions were remitted within the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question (prior to the amendment effective from April 1, 2021), it was sufficient if employee contributions were remitted within the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not warranted as the payments were made within the due date for filing the return of income. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, inserting Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va), was held to be prospective.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the purchase bills were genuine, supported by VAT payments, and the AO had not conducted sufficient inquiry. The Tribunal also noted that statements recorded under Section 131A have no evidentiary value.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the unexplained increase in capital as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. It also confirmed the estimation of profit at 5% of gross receipts after rejecting the assessee's books of account.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified as the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and the assessee had accounted for subsidies on an accrual basis. There was no escapement of income prejudicial to the revenue.