ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — January 2023

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee had incorrectly used the sale consideration value instead of the fair market value for calculating capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly set aside the assessment to the file of the AO. The conversion of capital asset to stock-in-trade and subsequent sale of plots within the same financial year attracts tax on capital gains and business income, which the AO failed to examine.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back. The CIT(A) was directed to examine the reasons for delay provided by the assessee and pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of income by providing evidence of sale of agricultural land by family members and confirmation letters. The time lag between sale and deposit was not a valid reason for addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly concluded that the extension of the special audit time limit was not granted by the Assessing Officer as required by law, rendering the assessment void. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly concluded that the extension of the special audit time limit was not granted by the Assessing Officer as required by law, rendering the assessment void. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the findings of the TPO and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), concluding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient explanation for the high lease rentals and management fees paid to its AE. Adjustments made by the tax authorities were deemed justified.

The Tribunal held that the extension of time for the special audit report was granted by an incompetent authority, making the assessment void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the extension of time for the special audit report was granted by an incompetent authority, making the assessment void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the extension of time for the special audit report was granted by an incompetent authority, making the assessment void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the extension of time for the special audit report was granted by an incompetent authority, making the assessment void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the extension of time for the special audit report was granted by an incompetent authority, making the assessment void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the extension of time for the special audit report was granted by an incompetent authority, making the assessment void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the extension of time for the special audit report was granted by an incompetent authority, making the assessment void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the extension of time for the special audit report was not granted by the Assessing Officer as required by law, rendering the assessment void ab initio and barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the extension of time for the special audit report was not granted by the Assessing Officer as required by law, rendering the assessment void ab initio and barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the extension of time for the special audit report was not granted by the Assessing Officer as required by law, rendering the assessment void ab initio and barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the extension of time for the special audit report was not granted by the Assessing Officer as required by law, rendering the assessment void ab initio and barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted in this case. The assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed, upholding the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal upheld the findings of the TPO and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), concluding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient explanation for the high lease rentals and management fees paid to its AE. Adjustments made by the tax authorities were deemed justified.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of upward adjustment on overdue receivables from AE after considering working capital adjustments. However, the ground regarding notional interest on outstanding receivables was dismissed, and the addition for short declaration of interest income was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly concluded that the extension of the special audit time limit was not granted by the Assessing Officer as required by law, rendering the assessment void. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the extension of time for the special audit report was not granted by the Assessing Officer as required by law, rendering the assessment void ab initio and barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the extension of time for the special audit report was granted by an incompetent authority, making the assessment void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment completed after the due date was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted in this case. The assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed, upholding the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted in this case. The assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed, upholding the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted in this case. The assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed, upholding the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly concluded that the extension of the special audit time limit was not granted by the Assessing Officer as required by law, rendering the assessment void. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case and furnish necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to the revenue to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the prescribed limit or if the case fell under exceptions.