ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by traveling beyond the selected issues. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's explanation regarding the source of increased capital.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in relying solely on the rough cash book without considering the audited cash book which was available and used for filing the return. The Tribunal found no merit in treating the peak negative cash balance as unexplained money.

The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's argument that the cash deposit was from earlier withdrawals. The Tribunal noted the deposit was in two phases after demonetization and lacked cogent evidence to support the explanation, upholding the lower authorities' orders.

The Tribunal held that when income is estimated under Section 44AD and no books of accounts are maintained, additions cannot be made with respect to trade creditors. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 206AA overrides other provisions of the Act, including Section 195A, when PAN is not furnished. The services rendered were considered professional in nature, making Section 194J applicable. The demand raised by the AO under Section 206AA was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the provision for bad and doubtful debts made by the cooperative bank was not allowable under Section 36(1)(viia) as it was excluded from the first proviso. However, the loss on sale of government securities classified as 'Available for Sale' was allowed as a trading loss.

The Tribunal held that while an unregistered gift of immovable property is not legally valid, the income from the sale of plots, already disclosed and taxed in the hands of the GPA holder, should not be taxed again in the hands of the assessee to avoid double taxation. However, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's grounds regarding the cash payments due to lack of documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee firm borrowed interest-bearing funds and gave interest-free advances to partners for non-business purposes. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act was justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee firm borrowed interest-bearing funds and provided interest-free loans to partners for non-business purposes. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) was justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee firm borrowed interest-bearing funds and gave interest-free advances to partners for non-business purposes. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act was justified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering the pandemic situation and the reasons provided. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to consider the additional ground.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), following a coordinate bench's decision. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for decision on merits, following a coordinate bench's decision. The levy of late filing fee for periods before June 1, 2015, was also questioned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), following a coordinate bench's decision. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) following a coordinate bench decision. However, it upheld the AO's levy of late filing fees as per Section 234E, as the returns were filed after the amended provisions came into force.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for decision on merits, following a coordinate bench's decision. It was held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be charged for returns filed before the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for decision on merits. It held that late filing fees under Section 234E are not leviable for returns filed before the amendment of Section 200A effective from 01/06/2015.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. It was held that late fees under Section 234E are not leviable for returns filed before the amendment of Section 200A effective from 01/06/2015.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for decision on merits. It was held that late filing fees under Section 234E are not leviable for returns filed before the amendment to Section 200A, effective from June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. It was held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be charged for returns filed before the amendment to Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. It was held that late fees under Section 234E are not leviable for returns filed before the amendment to Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for decision on merits. It held that late filing fees under Section 234E are not leviable for returns filed before the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal held that once an order is passed under Section 5 of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the matter covered by such order cannot be reopened in any other proceedings. Therefore, the revision proceedings under Section 263 were not sustainable.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A), decided to provide one more opportunity to ensure natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel did not press the grounds of appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), following a coordinate bench's decision. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) following a coordinate bench decision. However, it upheld the AO's levy of late filing fees as per Section 234E, as the returns were filed after the amended provisions came into force.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for decision on merits. It held that late filing fees under Section 234E are not leviable for returns filed before the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for decision on merits. It held that late filing fees under Section 234E are not leviable for returns filed before the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for decision on merits. It held that late filing fees under Section 234E are not leviable for returns filed before the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for decision on merits. It held that late filing fees under Section 234E are not leviable for returns filed before the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for decision on merits. It held that late filing fees under Section 234E are not leviable for returns filed before the amendment of Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) following a coordinate bench decision. However, it upheld the AO's levy of late filing fees as per Section 234E, as the returns were filed after the amended provisions came into force.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for decision on merits. It was held that late filing fees under Section 234E are not leviable for returns filed before the amendment to Section 200A, effective from 01/06/2015.