ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had no option but to pass an ex-parte order, in the interest of justice, the matter should be remitted back to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on 'limited return on share capital' was a finance cost and the 'withheld price' paid to milk producers, including amounts donated to a trust for their benefit, were business promotion expenditures.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on 'limited return on share capital' was a finance cost and the 'withheld price' paid to milk producers, including amounts donated to a trust for their benefit, were business promotion expenditures.

The Tribunal held that the assessment year in question (2008-09) was beyond the ten-year period prescribed by Section 153A(1)(b) for making assessments post-search. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that since the cash received was deposited into the bank and the transaction was disclosed in the return of income with tax paid, the penalty under Section 271D was unsustainable. The objective of Section 269SS is to curb black money generation, which was not achieved in this case.

The Tribunal held that the cash received was deposited into the bank account, and the assessee offered capital gains to tax. The circumstances constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B, making the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to full exemption for leave encashment earned during the period of service with the Department of Telecom, treating it as service rendered as a Central Government employee. The leave encashment for the period with BSNL is also eligible for exemption.

The Tribunal held that no interest under section 234A is chargeable on self-assessment tax paid before the due date of filing the return, following a CBDT circular and Supreme Court decision. Regarding section 234B interest, the matter was remitted to the AO for verification of any excess computation.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance for late remittance of PF and ESI contributions is upheld in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, regarding TDS on interest, commission, and contract charges, the matter was remitted back to the PCIT for a fresh opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities ought to have decided the case on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee as per the principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, decided to restore the appeals to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case with proper evidence, adhering to principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn because the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for appeals. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if exceptions to the circular applied.

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's lack of cooperation, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration. This was done in the interest of justice to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to COVID-19 pandemic limitations, which extended timelines. Therefore, the penalty levied for non-compliance during the COVID period was deleted.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, decided to restore the appeals to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case with proper evidence, adhering to principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that no interest under section 234A is chargeable on self-assessment tax paid before the due date of filing the return, following a CBDT circular and Supreme Court decision. Regarding section 234B interest, the matter was remitted to the AO for verification of any excess computation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to COVID-19 pandemic limitations, which extended timelines. Therefore, the penalty levied for non-compliance during the COVID period was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order under Section 271D was unsustainable because the AO had not recorded any satisfaction regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings during the assessment order. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills.

The ITAT held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay, supported by a medical certificate. Therefore, the delay should have been condoned, and the appeal should have been decided on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay did not constitute a sufficient or reasonable cause. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the valuation report and other submissions. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without providing proper opportunity, as it was passed before the due date for submissions. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's grievance about lack of opportunity, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the PCIT to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case with proper documentary evidence.

The tribunal dismissed the ground regarding the AO's jurisdiction, following a Supreme Court ruling. However, it allowed the grounds related to cash deposits and fresh capital, remitting the matter back to the PCIT for a fresh consideration due to the assessee's failure to respond to show cause notices.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the cooperative society from investments made from surplus funds, which are attributable to the activities eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), should be allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in this regard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO and CIT(A) needs no interference, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. This decision stated that for deduction, such amounts must be deposited on or before the due dates mandated by the respective welfare enactments.

The Tribunal held that belated deposit of employees' PF/ESI contribution, even if made before the due date of filing the return of income, is not deductible if not deposited within the due dates specified by the respective PF/ESI Acts. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.