ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — February 2023

The Tribunal, observing that the assessee had filed written submissions with evidence before the CIT(A) which were allegedly not considered, decided to remit the matter back. The CIT(A) was directed to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits during the demonetization period should be considered as business income/turnover. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit at 12.5% on these deposits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the notice under Section 153A was invalid as no incriminating material was found in the assessee's premises. However, the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs as unexplained investment was confirmed.

The Tribunal, observing that the assessee had filed written submissions with evidence before the CIT(A) which were allegedly not considered, decided to remit the matter back. The CIT(A) was directed to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal, observing that the assessee had filed written submissions with evidence before the CIT(A) which were allegedly not considered, decided to remit the matter back. The CIT(A) was directed to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal, observing that the assessee had filed written submissions with evidence before the CIT(A) which were allegedly not considered, decided to remit the matter back. The CIT(A) was directed to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed not to have received notices and pleaded for another opportunity. Respecting the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed not to have received notices and pleaded for another opportunity. Respecting the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed not to have received notices and pleaded for another opportunity. Respecting the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction regarding the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee under Section 14A. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had appropriately restricted certain disallowances based on the facts and evidence presented.

The Tribunal held that delayed payment of employee contributions towards PF/ESI are not available for deduction under Section 43B and should be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va), following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the notice under Section 153A was invalid as no incriminating material was found in the assessee's premises. However, the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs as unexplained investment was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that rental income from subletting a property, where the assessee is not the owner, should be taxed under 'income from other sources' and not 'income from house property'. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction regarding the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee under Section 14A. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had appropriately restricted certain disallowances based on the facts and evidence presented.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed not to have received notices and pleaded for another opportunity. Respecting the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE, with its 60% tax rate, is applicable for the Assessment Year 2017-18 as the amendment came into force from April 1, 2017. The assessee's contention that the tax should be at normal rates or 30% was rejected.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation regarding the source of funds for property investment, considering his business income and earnings from home tuitions. The Tribunal set aside the addition and deleted it.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate her claims before the lower authorities. To ensure principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for one more opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided an adequate opportunity to rebut the comparables selected by the TPO and that the objections raised were not properly considered. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the TPO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that running a blood bank is a charitable activity, but the assessee needed to prove it was operational after obtaining the necessary license. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) to verify if charitable activity commenced from the license date.

The Tribunal held that cash withdrawals from the bank account cannot be considered as turnover as they were out of cash deposits, which were already taxed. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO to estimate profit at 8% only on cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that delayed payment of employee PF/ESI contributions are disallowable as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. However, the receipt of SBNs as professional fees during demonetization was not illegal and therefore not taxable under Section 68.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which had partly allowed the appeal by estimating income at 8% of gross receipts. The assessee's failure to produce satisfactory evidence and contest the rejection of books before lower authorities led to this decision.

The Tribunal held that the corporate guarantee given to AEs is an international transaction. However, it reduced the adjustment rate to 0.50% on the corporate guarantee amount, partly allowing the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition of Rs. 9,38,000/- through a corrigendum, thereby redressing the assessee's grievance. Consequently, the assessee requested to withdraw Ground No.4, which the Tribunal allowed.

The Tribunal held that running a blood bank is a charitable activity, but the assessee needed to prove it was operational after obtaining the necessary license. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) to verify if charitable activity commenced from the license date.

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to a medical certificate and decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is to re-examine the issue after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that cash deposits from a kirana business, which primarily deals in cash sales, cannot be treated as unexplained without contrary findings. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a source for the cash deposits for the property investment.

The Tribunal held that the extinguishment of the right to specific performance of a contract, in lieu of compensation, constitutes a transfer of a capital asset under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the compensation received is taxable as capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not record satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings in the assessment order. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271D was not sustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no merit in the addition made by the AO. The absence of corroborative evidence from the assessee's premises and conflicting statements from the third party were key factors in the decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no merit in the addition made by the AO. The absence of corroborative evidence from the assessee's premises and conflicting statements from the third party were key factors in the decision.