ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — March 2023

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 51/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 55/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 52/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 67/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

KAPIL AHUJA,VISAKHAPTNAM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCEL - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 214/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the date of agreement for purchase of the property should be considered for calculating the period of holding, not just the registration date. Following the Madras High Court's decision, the Tribunal quashed the Pr. CIT's order.

SIVA RAMA KRISHNA RAO NUTAKKI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 180/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that interest under section 234B is chargeable on the shortfall in advance tax payment, reduced by tax deducted, and not tax deductible. The assessee was aware of the delay in tax deposit and filing the return, thus the onus was on them to pay the tax.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 46/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

VANGA JAIN BABU,DEVARAPALLI vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

ITA 126/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the character of the land remained agricultural, as evidenced by revenue records and lack of conversion to non-agricultural use. Therefore, the gains from the sale of agricultural land are not taxable as capital gains.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 49/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

SATHI TRINATHA REDDY,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 8/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 54F is a beneficial provision to be interpreted liberally. Since the assessee utilized the net sale consideration for purchasing a residential property within the time frame, the benefit of Section 54F could not be denied.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 50/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 47/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 59/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 56/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 66/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 62/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 65/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 58/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 60/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 57/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 63/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 64/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 61/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 48/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 54/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

RIMMALPUDI BHASKARA PATTABHI RAMANA CHOUDARY,RAJAHMUNDRY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 53/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015, could not be invoked for defaults prior to that date, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AY 2016-17, the defaults occurred after the insertion of Section 234E, making the levy valid.

PILLI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 96/VIZ/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2023AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly estimated agricultural income based on a valid proposition and upheld the restricted addition. However, it found that the insurance premium payment was a single transaction and not an unexplained expenditure, directing its deletion.

LAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS,NELLORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

ITA 4/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot estimate profits without first rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the estimation when the AO had not followed the proper procedure.

LAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS,NELLORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

ITA 6/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot estimate profits without first rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the estimation when the AO had not followed the proper procedure.

LAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS,NELLORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

ITA 5/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot estimate profits without first rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the estimation when the AO had not followed the proper procedure.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPTNAM vs MATTAPALLI RAMGOPAL, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 65/VIZ/2021[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the revenue were not maintainable as they were below the prescribed monetary limit and no special order was issued by the CBDT for filing these appeals on merit. The Tribunal relied on High Court and Supreme Court decisions regarding such exceptions.

PILLI SANTHOSH KRISHNA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 95/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain an addition of Rs. 2,09,855/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee failed to provide adequate proof for the source and repayment of these specific cash deposits.

PILLI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 97/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly estimated agricultural income based on a valid proposition and upheld the restricted addition. However, it found that the insurance premium payment was a single transaction and not an unexplained expenditure, directing its deletion.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs MATTAPALLI RAMGOPAL, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 66/VIZ/2021[20105-16]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2023Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the revenue were not maintainable as they were below the prescribed monetary limit and no special order was issued by the CBDT for filing these appeals on merit. The Tribunal relied on High Court and Supreme Court decisions regarding such exceptions.

SREEDHARS CCE,VIJAYAWADA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

ITA 149/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal, following its own precedent in a similar case for a different assessment year, directed the AO to compute the profit on unaccounted income at 18%. The Tribunal held that taxing the entire gross receipts without allowing for expenses is not justifiable.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs VIJAYNAGAR INVESTMENT AND INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 201/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that additions based on undated and uncorroborated loose sheets are not sustainable. The sale deeds and disclosed consideration were considered more reliable.

NAGA SIVA KUMAR KONDRI,VIJAYAWADA vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, BENGALURU

ITA 213/VIZ/2022[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2023AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the extended due dates for filing the return of income and Form-67, as per the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Therefore, the foreign tax credit should be allowed.

SAGARA VIKASA MUTUALLY AIDED COOP THRIFT SOCIETY LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 235/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2023AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the AO applied Section 143(1)(a)(v), which was inserted w.e.f. AY 2020-21, to the current assessment year. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENRTALCIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs VIJAYNAGAR FOOD AND NUTRACEUTICALS PVT LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 246/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that Section 2(32) of the Act defines substantial interest as holding not less than twenty percent of the voting power. Since the common director held only 19.05% of shares, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were not attracted.

LAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS,NELLORE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

ITA 7/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot estimate profits without first rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the estimation when the AO had not followed the proper procedure.

YADLA SRINIVASA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 78/VIZ/2021[2011-12]Status: Disposed17 Mar 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the capital gains should be computed based on the stamp duty value of Rs. 20,00,000 as per Section 50C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's contention of being only a GPA holder was not accepted.

SABBARAPU NARAYANA RAO,KAKINADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

ITA 217/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part. It accepted the gift from the mother-in-law, commission from paddy sales, agricultural income, and cash deposits from savings as explained. However, it upheld the addition related to capital contributions to a partnership firm due to lack of substantiation.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs M/S. NEKKANTI SEA FOODS LTD., VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 158/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed17 Mar 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that export incentives like Duty Draw Back and MEIS are income derived from business and profession, following the Supreme Court's decision in Meghalaya Steels Ltd. This overruled the AO's reliance on Liberty India.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), VISAKHAPATNAM vs SRI MUTCHUAKARLA APPA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 668/VIZ/2019[2011-2012]Status: Disposed17 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of short-term capital gains, finding that no transfer of property occurred in the relevant assessment year. For unexplained cash deposits, the Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, upholding additions for cash deposits but allowing for cheque deposits explained by the assessee.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRL CIRCLE-2, RAJAHMUNDRY vs DOLLARS COLONY PHASE-1, VIJAYAWADA

ITA 176/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Mar 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to establish that the assessee AOP received sale consideration over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the books of accounts. The Tribunal also noted that the purchasers were not examined to confirm the payment of 'on money'.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJAHMUNDRY vs DOLLARS COLONY PHASE-1, VIJAYAWADA

ITA 177/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Mar 2023AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to establish that the assessee AOP received sale consideration over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the books of accounts. The Tribunal also noted that the purchasers were not examined to confirm the payment of 'on money'.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM vs NALLAMILLI SRIDEVI, TIRUPATI

ITA 3/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's addition of Rs. 2.16 Crores as income from other sources, considering it as cash deposits violating FEMA regulations. However, it dismissed grounds related to interest expenditure, finding the CIT(A)'s order to be correct.

DOLLARS COLONY PHASE-1,VIJAYAWADA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 220/VIZ/2022[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Mar 2023AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to establish that the assessee AOP received sale consideration over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the books of accounts. The Tribunal also noted that the purchasers were not examined to confirm the payment of 'on money'.

SAMYUKTA HEALTH &ACADEMIC SOCIETY,ANAKAPALLE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 232/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Mar 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to genuine medical reasons and the Supreme Court's extensions. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO to examine if the assessee claimed exemption on the cost of assets, which would determine depreciation eligibility.

DOLLARS COLONY PHASE-1,VIJAYAWADA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 218/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Mar 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to establish that the assessee AOP received sale consideration over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the books of accounts. The Tribunal also noted that the purchasers were not examined to confirm the payment of 'on money'.