ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — October 2023

The Tribunal held that salary earned for services rendered outside India, even if credited to an NRE account in India, is not taxable in India. They applied the analogy of CBDT Circular No. 13 of 2017.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present evidence before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not claim any expenditure for the purchases or the written-off stock in the relevant assessment years, the addition made by the AO was unjustified. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had rightly deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order under Section 271D was invalid as the AO failed to record his satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings in the assessment order. The Tribunal followed Supreme Court and other High Court judgments on this point.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present evidence before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of income was not sufficiently corroborated and that the assessee's offered income per acre was reasonable and in line with CBDT guidelines and previous tribunal decisions. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of income was not sufficiently corroborated and that the assessee's offered income per acre was reasonable and in line with CBDT guidelines and previous tribunal decisions. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of income was not sufficiently corroborated and that the assessee's offered income per acre was reasonable and in line with CBDT guidelines and previous tribunal decisions. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of income was not sufficiently corroborated and that the assessee's offered income per acre was reasonable and in line with CBDT guidelines and previous tribunal decisions. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of income was not sufficiently corroborated and that the assessee's offered income per acre was reasonable and in line with CBDT guidelines and previous tribunal decisions. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause. It further granted an additional relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the assessee, reducing the confirmed addition to Rs. 7,58,000/-, considering the assessee's savings and gifts from parents.

Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal held that the assessee had not provided any material to demonstrate that the 8% estimation of gross profit was exorbitant or excessive. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal found the 8% estimation to be reasonable and accordingly dismissed the ground of appeal related to this issue. For the second issue, the Tribunal acknowledged the undisputed fact that the profit was estimated at Rs. 28,86,760/- (8% of Rs. 3,60,84,530/-), but the AO had wrongly taken Rs. 29,68,705/- in the computation. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the correct amount of Rs. 28,86,760/- in the computation and pass the order accordingly. This ground of appeal was allowed. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee society from its investments in banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The ratio of the Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. case was distinguished as not applicable to the present facts.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee society from its investments in banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The ratio of the Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. case was distinguished as not applicable to the present facts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the claims regarding the source of cash deposits. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the delay in filing Form 10B was condoned and the exemption under Section 11 was granted. The grievance of the assessee was redressed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat Rs. 1,00,000/- as unexplained money, while allowing Rs. 1,00,000/- sourced from the wife's agricultural income and 50% of the amount claimed from the father's agricultural income.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the higher payments to directors and relatives. The decision relied on a previous ruling in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to substantiate her claim regarding the source of the advance. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was sustained.

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Vavveru Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd., held that interest income from deposits made from the society's own funds, derived from its eligible business activities, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the Totgars case.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee society from its investments in banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The ratio of the Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. case was distinguished as not applicable to the present facts.

The Tribunal held that accumulated profits, including undisclosed income added to reserves and surplus, must be considered for computing deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The reopening of the case under Section 148 was found to be within the prescribed period.

The Tribunal held that accumulated profits include all profits of the company up to the date of distribution or payment, including undisclosed income added to reserves. The reopening of the assessment was also found to be within the prescribed time limits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not converted the land into stock-in-trade but merely sub-divided it to fetch a higher market price. The AO had made necessary enquiries and verified the computation. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order invoking Section 263 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the labour and material creditors, and also failed to deduct TDS as required. The rejection of additional evidence by the CIT(A) was upheld, and the AO's disallowances were deemed justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the labour and material creditors, and also failed to deduct TDS as required. The rejection of additional evidence by the CIT(A) was upheld, and the AO's disallowances were deemed justified.