ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — February 2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1077 days, finding that it was not due to negligence but rather a lack of knowledge of the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1077 days, finding that it was not due to negligence but lack of knowledge of the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had the power under Section 250(4) to conduct further inquiries and admit additional evidence. On merits, the Tribunal found that the cash deposits were made by a sister concern to accommodate them in obtaining a Demand Draft, and thus were not income of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to prove that no concealment or inaccurate particulars of income were furnished. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO to provide another opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the cash purchases of husk from farmers are covered under the exception provided in Rule 6DD(e) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as husk is considered an agricultural produce. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not justified.

The Tribunal found that Form 10B was filed within the due date of July 31, 2018, and the revenue authorities erred in denying the exemption without considering this fact. The assessee is a registered trust under Section 12A.

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, held that the cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income received from investments in banks. The disallowance made by the AO was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not properly verified the genuineness of the sub-contract payments, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 and remanding the case for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1077 days, finding that it was not due to negligence but rather a lack of knowledge of the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 1,69,99,980/- as unexplained share application money. The assessee failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the investors beyond doubt, despite filing various documents.

The Tribunal held that the actual expenditure incurred for in-house R&D facility, as certified by the Ministry of Science and Technology, should be allowed as a deduction. The weighted deduction was disallowed, but the normal deduction was granted.

The Tribunal held that as per Section 80A(5), a claim for deduction under Chapter VI-A requires filing a valid return of income. Since the assessee failed to file a valid return within the prescribed time, the deduction under Section 80P was not admissible.

The Tribunal held that no addition can be made under Section 69 of the Act when the amount is recorded in the assessee's books of account. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 78,163/- made under Section 69 was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under Section 147/148 is not permissible when proceedings under Section 154 are pending, citing a Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the reopening notice was considered invalid.

The Tribunal held that taxing the same amount in the hands of the partner when it was already taxed in the hands of the firm would amount to double taxation. Therefore, the addition made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed its return and paid self-assessment tax with a different PAN than the one used for the assessment. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering these facts.

The Tribunal held that to meet the principles of natural justice, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A). The assessee is to be given another opportunity to substantiate their case with credible evidence.

The Tribunal held that taxing the same amount in the hands of the partner when it was already taxed in the hands of the firm would amount to double taxation. Therefore, the addition made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that taxing the same amount in the hands of the partner when it was already taxed in the hands of the firm would amount to double taxation. Therefore, the addition made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that taxing the same amount in the hands of the partner when it was already taxed in the hands of the firm would amount to double taxation. Therefore, the addition made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that taxing the same amount in the hands of the partner when it was already taxed in the hands of the firm would amount to double taxation. Therefore, the addition made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that taxing the same amount in the hands of the partner when it was already taxed in the hands of the firm would amount to double taxation. Therefore, the addition made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that taxing the same amount in the hands of the partner when it was already taxed in the hands of the firm would amount to double taxation. Therefore, the addition made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent documentary evidence to substantiate her claims before the revenue authorities and the Tribunal. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was found to be without infirmity.

The Tribunal held that taxing the same amount in the hands of the partner when it was already taxed in the hands of the firm would amount to double taxation. Therefore, the addition made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent documentary evidence to substantiate her claims before the revenue authorities and the Tribunal. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was found to be without infirmity.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to file a valid return of income within the prescribed time, the claim for deduction under Section 80P was not admissible. The provisions of Section 80A(5) were correctly applied by the revenue authorities.

The Tribunal held that the actual expenditure incurred for in-house R&D facility, as certified by the Ministry of Science and Technology, should be allowed as a deduction. The weighted deduction was disallowed, but the normal deduction was granted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to file a valid return of income within the prescribed time, the claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was not admissible. The Tribunal upheld the orders of the revenue authorities.

The Tribunal held that filing Form-67 belatedly, but before the intimation under Section 143(1) was passed, is a directory requirement and not mandatory. Following the Madras High Court's decision, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted sufficient inquiries regarding the cash deposits, making the original assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Therefore, the revisionary order under Section 263 was sustained.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had made inquiries. The commission payment was made through banking channels with TDS, and the business decision of the assessee cannot be questioned solely based on the amount of commission.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposits and the fund transfers, considering the affidavits filed and the nature of the transactions. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CPC erroneously added the sale consideration and interest income as business income, ignoring that these were already declared under the respective heads in the return. Therefore, the addition made by the CPC was deemed erroneous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and pass an order on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the DRT set aside the auction sale, there was no valid sale of the property, and therefore, capital gains could not be computed. The appeal was allowed, subject to the outcome of the bank's appeal before the DRAT.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of belatedly remitted employee contributions to PF and ESI.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's health issues. It held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed belatedly and no condonation petition was submitted. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision proceedings under Section 263 were initiated solely based on the AO's recommendations, which is not permissible. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order, following established legal precedents.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back. It directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, examine additional evidence, and pass a speaking order on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the appeal in-limine as there was no admitted income from the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte and the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices. To uphold principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding a reasonable cause for the belated filing. The matter was remitted back to the PCIT to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard, adhering to principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not unilaterally change the Most Appropriate Method (TNMM) from previous years to CUP without valid reasons. Objections regarding adjustments for prior year data, economic conditions, and expenses were rejected due to lack of substantiation.

The Tribunal found that the reasons provided for the delay, including the brother's illness and the assessee's own past medical treatment, did not constitute sufficient or reasonable cause. Consequently, the petition for condonation of delay was rejected.

The Tribunal found that the reasons provided for the delay, including medical issues of a family member, did not constitute sufficient or reasonable cause. Consequently, the petition for condonation of delay was rejected.

The Tribunal upheld the comparables selected by the TPO for the transfer pricing adjustment, dismissing the assessee's grounds related to this. However, it allowed the assessee's ground regarding notional interest on outstanding receivables, stating that the net margin under the TNMM method already accounts for such costs.

The Tribunal held that outstanding receivables constitute an international transaction. However, it ruled that no separate upward adjustment is required for notional interest on overdue receivables when the TNMM method is used, as it subsumes such costs.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no merit in the assessee's arguments. It affirmed that when income is estimated, further deductions are generally not allowed, and the reduced estimation rates were consistent with previous tribunal rulings.