ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — July 2023

KOYYA GANGA VENKATA SATYA BHASKAR RAO,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-1, TUNI

ITA 145/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's income was from transport business and Section 44AE was applicable. Since the assessee had already admitted Rs. 90,000/- as income from transport business, the addition of the entire gross receipts was unjustified.

RAMESH BABU BANDI,VIJAYAWADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 140/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal found that the assessee is a farmer with agricultural land and had provided confirmation letters for cash sales of produce. The AO's disallowance without valid reasons was deemed unreasonable.

UMA MAHESWARA REDDY MAJJI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 163/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that principles of natural justice require providing an opportunity to be heard and therefore, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

KOYYA GANGA VENKATA SATYA BHASKAR RAO,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-1, TUNI

ITA 146/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's income was from transport business and Section 44AE was applicable. Since the assessee had already admitted Rs. 90,000/- as income from transport business, the addition of the entire gross receipts was unjustified.

OURS YOUTH CLUB,VIZIANAGARAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

ITA 22/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that Rule 87 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, pertains to approved superannuation funds and was incorrectly applied by the AO to PF and ESI contributions. The AO's calculation was also found to be erroneous.

RUTH MAMIDI,WEST GODAVARI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

ITA 3/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. It allowed a portion of the cash deposits as explained, particularly those from the sale of agricultural land, while confirming additions for other unexplained deposits.

GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 97/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the delayed remittance of employee contributions to PF and ESI is a settled matter in favor of the Revenue, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd. The Tribunal also found that adjustments made by the CPC under Section 143(1) were valid.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 227/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the delayed remittance of employee contributions to PF and ESI is a settled matter in favor of the Revenue, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd. The Tribunal also found that adjustments made by the CPC under Section 143(1) were valid.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA vs POTLURI RAVI L/R LATE POTLURI BABU RAO, VIJAYAWADA

ITA 120/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had rightly allowed deductions for variations in CPWD rates and for self-supervision, following consistent jurisdictional precedents. The AO's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

KOSURU SARATCHANDRA GOPIKRISHNA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 101/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal found that the amounts collected and deposited in the assessee's bank account were not his income but collections for services rendered and deposited with the Andhra Pradesh government. The revenue could not controvert this fact.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs GUNTUBOLU UMA SAI PRASAD, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 226/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the delayed remittance of employee contributions to PF and ESI is a settled matter in favor of the Revenue, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd. The Tribunal also found that adjustments made by the CPC under Section 143(1) were valid.

MARTURI SRINIVASA RAO,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

ITA 124/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as an agent and collected money on behalf of the principal, not as his own turnover. The assessee had a reasonable cause for not getting accounts audited, thus invoking Section 273B.

RAVINDRANATH EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), GUNTUR

ITA 130/VIZ/2023[NA]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the assessees failed to comply with the notices, their reply filed on 08.12.2022 was not considered. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for one more opportunity.

GUDIBANDI SOMIREDDY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GUNTUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), GUNTUR

ITA 131/VIZ/2023[NA]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the assessees failed to comply with the notices, their reply filed on 08.12.2022 was not considered. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for one more opportunity.

FISHERY SURVEY OF INDIA EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT AND THRIFT SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 23/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Section 80AC(ii) mandates that deductions under Part C of Chapter VIA are admissible only if the return of income is filed within the prescribed due date. Therefore, no such deduction is admissible in the case of a belated return.

SIONC PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 40/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the belated deposit of employee contributions to PF/ESI are not eligible for deduction, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also found that adjustments made under section 143(1) for such incorrect claims are valid.

ANDHRA PRADESH TANNERIES LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 191/VIZ/2020[2006-07]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2006-07Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to furnish a rejoinder to the remand report, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

VIZAG SEAPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 944/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on conflicting decisions, not a change of opinion. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal followed its own prior decision, allowing amortization of the project berth cost over the license period as per a clarificatory CBDT circular.

TEEJAY INDIA PVT LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 154/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The tribunal directed that in the previous order, the term 'Technical Support Service Fee' should be replaced with 'Royalty' wherever it appears. Additionally, an omitted sentence was inserted into a paragraph concerning the remittance of the matter back to the TPO.

TEEJAY INDIA PVT LTD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs DCIT, CIRLCE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 155/VIZ/2022[22018-19]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023Partly Allowed

The tribunal directed that in the previous order, the term 'Technical Support Service Fee' should be replaced with 'Royalty' wherever it appears. Additionally, an omitted sentence was inserted into a paragraph concerning the remittance of the matter back to the TPO.

VIZAG SEAPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OR INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 83/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on conflicting decisions, not a change of opinion. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal followed its own prior decision, allowing amortization of the project berth cost over the license period as per a clarificatory CBDT circular.

MEKA KASI VISESWARUDU,VIZIANAGARAM vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

ITA 212/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal noted ambiguity in certificates from revenue and municipal authorities regarding the land's proximity to municipal limits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for re-ascertainment.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs VIZAG SEAPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 99/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on conflicting decisions, not a change of opinion. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal followed its own prior decision, allowing amortization of the project berth cost over the license period as per a clarificatory CBDT circular.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs GATEWAY EAST INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 38/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that a Container Freight Station (CFS) qualifies as an 'inland port' and thus an 'infrastructure facility' for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 80IA(4). Following its own previous decisions and High Court judgments, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

VENKATA RAMA SATYANARAYANA VARMA VEGESNA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 165/VIZ/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied for additions made by invoking the deeming fiction of Section 2(22)(e), especially when the issue is debatable and the assessee had disclosed relevant information. The penalty was directed to be deleted.

LEWEK ALTAIR SHIPPING PRIVATE LIMITED,KAKINADA vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KAKINADA

ITA 41/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Tonnage Tax Scheme overrides the Transfer Pricing provisions. Therefore, the TP adjustments are not applicable to the assessee. The additions made on account of Transfer Pricing adjustment were directed to be deleted.

ALLIANCE ONE INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), GUNTUR

ITA 68/VIZ/2022[2017-2018]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that Bommidala Ventures Pvt Ltd. was not a good comparable due to significant differences in assets employed. It also directed the exclusion of Premier Tobacco Packers Private Limited as a comparable due to inconsistencies in applying filters. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that export incentives should be considered as operating income.