ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — March 2024

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was based on a change of opinion by the AO, as the income was already considered during scrutiny assessments for AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18. The Tribunal also directed that credit for the tax paid under IDS be granted.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order directing the AO to verify the cash deposits and compute income at 8% of the total deposits. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh verification with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require affording the assessee another opportunity to be heard. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided a confirmation letter for the Rs. 13 lakhs loan before the Tribunal, which was not submitted earlier. Due to ambiguity regarding the place of receipt of the loan, the matter was remitted back to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that considering the partners' other sources of income and regular filing of returns, the introduction of capital was genuine. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

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

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) is not admissible. The provisions of Section 80A(5) are applicable, requiring the claim to be made in a valid return of income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) with supporting evidence, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income earned from investments in banks, distinguishing the facts from the Totgars case. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Vavveru Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, acting as a 'kaccha arahtia' (commission agent), is eligible for credit of the entire TDS deducted, as per CBDT Circular No. 452. The gross sale proceeds should not be treated as the assessee's income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the death of the assessee's representative. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine due to delay without considering the merits. The case was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not provide valid explanations for treating interest income as business income, the AO's order was upheld. The interest income was correctly treated as income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of a specific clause in the India-Mauritius DTAA for taxing FTS, and given that the assessee has no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, the FTS should be treated as business profits and are not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the condonation petition filed by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. It held that principles of natural justice require affording the assessee an opportunity to present her case and evidence before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the current appeal was a duplication of a previously filed appeal. Therefore, it was considered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not properly served with notices and therefore, an opportunity of being heard should be provided. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the employer had wrongly included the entire salary paid in their TDS returns initially. The assessee had filed a revised Form-16 and Form-26AS reflecting the correct salary and TDS deduction.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the issues were identical to those previously adjudicated in the assessee's own case. Based on the prior decision, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal in part and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the issues were identical to those previously adjudicated in the assessee's own case. Based on the prior decision, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal in part and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the issues were identical to those previously adjudicated in the assessee's own case. Based on the prior decision, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal in part and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the issues were identical to those previously adjudicated in the assessee's own case. Based on the prior decision, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal in part and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the issues were identical to those previously adjudicated in the assessee's own case. Based on the prior decision, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal in part and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the issues were identical to those previously adjudicated in the assessee's own case. Based on the prior decision, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal in part and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal as time-barred. The assessee failed to substantiate the delay before either the CIT(A) or the Tribunal, and no reasonable cause was established.

The Tribunal held that the source of Rs. 12,44,000/- deposited in the bank account was explained by the sale of property. However, only Rs. 7,56,629/- out of Rs. 10,69,022/- in other credit entries was explained as agricultural income, sustaining the addition for the balance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a reasonable cause for the significant delay of 303 days in filing the appeal. The explanation provided regarding the Chartered Accountant's failure to inform about the order was not supported by an affidavit and lacked a valid reason.

The Tribunal noted that the revised grounds of appeal, raising issues of limitation and validity of the penalty order, were not raised before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The ITAT, relying on CBDT Circular No. 19/2015, held that the exemption provided under Section 194A(3)(v) for interest paid by a cooperative society to another cooperative society also applies to cooperative banks. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source on the interest paid to the other cooperative society, and the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that interest expenditure incurred on borrowed funds for making investments is eligible for deduction under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act, following a High Court precedent. The disallowance made by the revenue authorities was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without giving reasons and without considering the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits arising from credit sales to numerous small traders, who paid less than Rs. 10,000 per party and were not covered by GST/VAT, were genuine. However, cash deposits into a specific bank account without explanation were upheld.

The Tribunal set aside the enhancement order by the CIT(A) and sustained the disallowance of Rs. 10,90,000/- made by the AO. The assessee failed to produce evidence for the claimed agricultural income.

The Tribunal held that as the assessee is a 'kaccha arahtia' (commission agent), only the gross commission is to be considered as turnover, not the sales effected on behalf of principals. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the entire TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit of Rs. 21,50,000/- related to sale consideration of sites was explained. However, the deposit of Rs. 2,60,000/- from a loan was not properly explained, while Rs. 90,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- were considered explained.

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

The ITAT acknowledged the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order due to the assessee's failure to make submissions. In the interest of justice, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of the assessee's AR. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments made out of its business activities is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Vavveru Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 895 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided evidence of new registration u/s 12AB before it. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO to examine the new approval and decide the issue afresh.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The death of the accountant, without further substantiation and considering the significant delay even after the event, did not meet the 'sufficient cause' criteria under the Limitation Act.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of belatedly remitted employee contributions to PF and ESI is justified, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The disallowance needs no interference.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had expired and the legal representative was unaware of the proceedings. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have considered the assessee's explanation for the delay and disposed of the appeal on merits. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal in-limine was not appreciated.