ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — June 2023

LOKANADHA RAO BATTINA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 92/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the notices, as evidenced by acknowledgements on the ITBA portal. The AO's action of levying penalty despite compliance was deemed incorrect.

MADHU CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 90/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed20 Jun 2023AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) is justified. This is in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that late payments of employee contributions are not allowable deductions.

KPR AGROCHEM LIMITED,BALABHADRAPURAM vs DCIT CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

ITA 221/VIZ/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not applicable when no exempt income is earned in the relevant year, relying on High Court decisions. It also held that the assessee can value captive power generation at the cost of the most economic alternative source for Section 80IA deduction.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONALTAXATION, VIJAYAWADA vs KRISHNA MOHAN MALEMPATI, WELLINGTON MANOR

ITA 121/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the cash withdrawals made prior to demonetization explained the subsequent deposit, and the assessee's explanation for cost of improvement was valid. The CIT(A) had rightly considered the additional evidence.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPRTNAM vs FLUENTGRID LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 62/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance cannot be made in the absence of exempt income, citing judicial precedents. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly considered the assessee's bonafide mistake in reporting the WDV and directed to restrict the disallowance.

GINJALA ATCHIRAJU, L/R. OF GINJALA SIMHADRI RAJU,KAKINADA vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, KAKINADA

ITA 159/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied on the difference in valuation of cost of acquisition, based on the Departmental Valuer's estimate, was not valid. However, the penalty for the Rs. 1 Cr received over and above the sale consideration was confirmed.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA vs KPR AGROCHEM LIMITED, BALABHADRAPURAM

ITA 80/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2023AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not applicable when no exempt income is earned in the relevant year, relying on High Court decisions. It also held that the assessee can value captive power generation at the cost of the most economic alternative source for Section 80IA deduction.

KPR AGROCHEM LIMITED,BALABHADRAPURAM vs DCIT CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

ITA 223/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not applicable when no exempt income is earned in the relevant year, relying on High Court decisions. It also held that the assessee can value captive power generation at the cost of the most economic alternative source for Section 80IA deduction.

KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI CRACKERS,VISAKHAPATNAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 240/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the cash deposits, considering the purchases and closing stock which were not disputed by the revenue. Therefore, no addition could be made under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE.

KAKATIYA SANGHAM,TANUKU vs INCPME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

ITA 19/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that corpus donations received for a specific purpose, like construction of a hall, are tied-up grants and cannot be treated as income under Section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. Therefore, Section 2(15) is not applicable to such donations.

SHREE KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 91/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 44AB is applicable to 'Profits and Gains of Business or Profession' and not to 'income from other sources'. Since the income was consistently treated as 'income from other sources' by the assessee, CPC, and AO, the penalty under Section 271B was not sustainable.

KPR AGROCHEM LIMITED,BALABHADRAPURAM vs DCIT CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

ITA 222/VIZ/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not applicable when no exempt income is earned in the relevant year, relying on High Court decisions. It also held that the assessee can value captive power generation at the cost of the most economic alternative source for Section 80IA deduction.

KAKARLA VISHNU SRINIVASA RAO,GANAPAVARM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

ITA 93/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny by disallowing cash withdrawals without converting the assessment to full scrutiny and obtaining prior approval. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not valid in law.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA vs KPR AGROCHEM LIMITED, BALABHADRAPURAM

ITA 81/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not applicable when no exempt income is earned in the relevant year, relying on High Court decisions. It also held that the assessee can value captive power generation at the cost of the most economic alternative source for Section 80IA deduction.