ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — April 2023

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the case, as neither the assessee nor their representative appeared on the designated dates despite notices. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in-limine.

The tribunal upheld the order of the Pr.CIT passed under Section 263, stating that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not properly verified the cash deposits and the estimation of profit was without basis. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

The tribunal held that the premium paid by the employer on the life of the employee under an Employer Employee Scheme is a taxable perquisite under Section 17(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The argument that the employee had no immediate benefit was rejected.

The tribunal held that the premium paid by the employer on the life of the employee under an Employer Employee Scheme (EES) is a taxable perquisite under Section 17(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's argument that no immediate benefit accrued to the employee was rejected.

The tribunal held that the premium paid by the employer on the life of the employee under an Employer Employee Scheme (EES) is a taxable perquisite under Section 17(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's argument that no immediate benefit accrued to the employee was rejected.

The tribunal held that the premium paid by the employer on the life of the employee under an Employer Employee Scheme (EES) is a taxable perquisite under Section 17(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's argument that no immediate benefit accrued to the employee was rejected.

The tribunal held that the premium paid by the employer on the life of the employee under an Employer Employee Scheme (EES) is a taxable perquisite under Section 17(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's argument that no immediate benefit accrued to the employee was rejected.

The tribunal held that the premium paid by the employer on the life of the employee under an Employer Employee Scheme is a taxable perquisite under Section 17(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's argument that no immediate benefit accrued to the employee was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed against a letter denying waiver of late filing fee, rather than against the order levying the fee, was not maintainable. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal in limine was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed against a letter denying waiver of late filing fee, rather than against the order levying the fee, was not maintainable. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal in limine was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2011-12, it directed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- as it was taxed twice. For other assessment years, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2011-12, it directed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- as it was taxed twice. For other assessment years, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2011-12, it directed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- as it was taxed twice. For other assessment years, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect. Following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal ruled that not expending the entire amount in the relevant year does not warrant disallowance as it is for future public utility purposes.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect. Following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal ruled that not expending the entire amount in the relevant year does not warrant disallowance as it is for future public utility purposes.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect. Following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal ruled that not expending the entire amount in the relevant year does not warrant disallowance as it is for future public utility purposes.

The Tribunal found the reasons provided for the delay to be unconvincing and lacking satisfactory evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the delay could not be condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2011-12, it directed the deletion of Rs. 15,00,000/- addition as it was taxed twice. For AY 2012-13, the CIT(A)'s estimation of agricultural income was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2011-12, it was held that an amount of Rs. 15,00,000 cannot be taxed twice, leading to a partial allowance. For other assessment years, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2011-12, it directed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- as it was taxed twice. For other assessment years, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, following a Supreme Court decision in a similar case, directed the revenue authorities to allow the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) or the Tribunal. To ensure justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed against a letter denying waiver of late filing fee, rather than against the order levying the fee, was not maintainable. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal in limine was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect. Following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal ruled that not expending the entire amount in the relevant year does not warrant disallowance as it is for future public utility purposes.

For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E cannot be enforced for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, where defaults occurred after June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was upheld.

For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E cannot be enforced for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, where defaults occurred after June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was upheld.

For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E cannot be enforced for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, where defaults occurred after June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was upheld.

For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E cannot be enforced for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, where defaults occurred after June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was upheld.

For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E cannot be enforced for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, where defaults occurred after June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was upheld.

For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E cannot be enforced for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, where defaults occurred after June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was upheld.

For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E cannot be enforced for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, where defaults occurred after June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was upheld.

For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E cannot be enforced for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, where defaults occurred after June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was upheld.

For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E cannot be enforced for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, where defaults occurred after June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was upheld.

For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E cannot be enforced for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, where defaults occurred after June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was upheld.

For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E cannot be enforced for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, where defaults occurred after June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was upheld.

For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E cannot be enforced for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, where defaults occurred after June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was upheld.

For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E cannot be enforced for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, where defaults occurred after June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was upheld.

For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, where TDS returns were for periods before June 1, 2015, but filed/processed after, the Tribunal held that Section 234E cannot be enforced. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, where TDS returns were filed after June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was upheld.

For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E cannot be enforced for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, where defaults occurred after June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was upheld.

For AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal held that Section 234E cannot be enforced for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, even if returns were filed or processed later. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, where defaults occurred after June 1, 2015, the levy of late fees was upheld.