ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal held that the assessment order is bad in law because the notice under Section 143(2) was not issued by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee. Multiple High Court and ITAT judgments were cited to support the principle that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or default, and decisions made without jurisdiction are nullities.

The Tribunal held that the property, despite being named a cinema theatre, lacked essential components like seating, projectors, and licenses, making it merely an ACC roof shed. Therefore, it was considered a capital asset, and Section 50C was applicable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and physical verification of the property, concluding it was not a residential house. Therefore, the revision proceedings initiated by the Pr.CIT were deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and physical verification of the property, concluding it was not a residential house. Therefore, the revision proceedings initiated by the Pr.CIT were deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the AO had properly considered the additional income offered by the assessee during the survey and that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions emphasizing that if an issue is examined and explained to the AO's satisfaction, it doesn't automatically make the order revisable.

The Tribunal held that the subsequent APA should have a bearing on the earlier assessment years and restored the issue to the AO/TPO to decide afresh in line with the APA terms, after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The disallowance of employee PF/ESI contribution was deleted as it was deposited before the return filing due date.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and held that the AO failed to consider the assessee's savings from earlier years' salary income. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the investment was met from own savings.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not consistently applying the CBDT notification regarding gold holdings of family members and directed the AO to allow a portion of the gold as per the notification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the gold belonging to her mother, who resides with her, should be considered as part of the family's permissible exemption.

The Tribunal held that the subsequent APA should have a bearing on the earlier assessment years and restored the issue to the AO/TPO to decide afresh in line with the APA terms, after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The disallowance of employee PF/ESI contribution was deleted as it was deposited before the return filing due date.

The Tribunal held that the subsequent APA should have a bearing on the earlier assessment years and restored the issue to the AO/TPO to decide afresh in line with the APA terms, after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The disallowance of employee PF/ESI contribution was deleted as it was deposited before the return filing due date.

The Tribunal held that the sale deed was registered, and the assessee confirmed receiving the sale consideration through cheques. Since the assessee failed to provide evidence that the cheques were not encashed due to personal reasons or litigation, the lower authorities' orders were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) adopted by the revenue authorities was the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determining the ALP of the international transactions. The Tribunal found that the price of imports from group companies had a direct bearing on the export pricing charged to group companies.

The Tribunal held that the sale deed was registered, and the assessee confirmed receiving the sale consideration through cheques. Since the assessee failed to provide evidence that the cheques were not encashed due to personal reasons or litigation, the lower authorities' orders were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) adopted by the revenue authorities was the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determining the ALP of the international transactions. The Tribunal found that the price of imports from group companies had a direct bearing on the export pricing charged to group companies.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was incorrect in disallowing the entire expenditure. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow a partial disallowance, considering the damaged vouchers and past practices, was found to be reasonable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal without giving proper notice and hearing the authorized representative. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 was not valid. They found that the partner's part-time teaching did not preclude her from attending to the firm's administrative work, and the remuneration paid was reasonable.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the AO and CIT(A) as the assessee did not provide any material to substantiate their case at any stage. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the advances, including an MoU and details of amounts received from the prospective buyer.

The Tribunal held that taxing the entire gross receipts at a high profit percentage was not justifiable. It directed that the net profit should be computed at a reasonable rate, considering that some expenditure must have been incurred for the undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that taxing the entire gross receipts at a high profit percentage was not justifiable. It directed that the net profit should be computed at a reasonable rate, considering that some expenditure must have been incurred for the undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that taxing the entire gross receipts at a high profit percentage was not justifiable. It directed that the net profit should be computed at a reasonable rate, considering that some expenditure must have been incurred for the undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the advances, including an MoU and details of amounts received from the prospective buyer.

The Tribunal held that depreciation, even if extraordinary, should be considered part of operating costs for ALP computation as the assets were used for services to AEs. However, it directed the AO to verify and give effect to the assessee's positive working capital adjustment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not produce Form-10CCB as claimed to have been prepared on the date of filing the return. Since the form was not filed with the return, the Assessing Officer's disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce satisfactory evidence of creditors during remand proceedings. The addresses of many creditors were not verifiable, and their income tax details showed meagre or no returns filed for relevant periods.

The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 201/201(1A) must be initiated within a reasonable period, which is considered to be 4 years for non-residents. Since the notice was issued beyond this period, the order was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT (Exemptions) before rejecting the application. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT (Exemptions) for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted the consistent non-appearance of the assessee or its representative for hearings, even on the current date. It concluded that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee do not constitute a 'reasonable/sufficient cause' for the inordinate delay. Consequently, the condonation of delay was rejected.

The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeal, considering the peculiar circumstances and the pandemic. On merits, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate net profit at 5% of the purchase price and allowed the disallowance of license fee, stating that the revenue authorities erred in disallowing it.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide proper evidence to substantiate the cash deposits, even with the changed explanation. The different stands taken by the assessee and lack of documentary evidence led to the confirmation of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the cost of land relinquished by the assessee should not be included in the deemed sale consideration. It also held that the rate of Rs. 400 per sq ft for construction was for a completed building, and since the building was semi-finished, a lower rate was appropriate.

The Tribunal held that orders passed by the CIT(E) under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay are not appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, if employee contributions were remitted within the due date of filing the income tax return, the disallowance was not justified. The amendments clarifying the application of Section 43B to employee contributions were prospective.

The Tribunal held that orders passed by the CIT(E) under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay are not appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that orders passed by the CIT(E) under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay are not appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.