ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — April 2024

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide specific instances or evidence of contravention of the Act by the assessee. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure by the AO was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide specific instances or evidence of contravention of the Act by the assessee. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure by the AO was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide specific instances or evidence of contravention of the Act by the assessee. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure by the AO was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide specific instances or evidence of contravention of the Act by the assessee. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure by the AO was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide specific instances or evidence of contravention of the Act by the assessee. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure by the AO was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide specific instances or evidence of contravention of the Act by the assessee. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure by the AO was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide specific instances or evidence of contravention of the Act by the assessee. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure by the AO was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide specific instances or evidence of contravention of the Act by the assessee. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure by the AO was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide specific instances or evidence of contravention of the Act by the assessee. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure by the AO was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide specific instances or evidence of contravention of the Act by the assessee. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure by the AO was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide specific instances or evidence of contravention of the Act by the assessee. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure by the AO was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide specific instances or evidence of contravention of the Act by the assessee. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure by the AO was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide specific instances or evidence of contravention of the Act by the assessee. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure by the AO was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide specific instances or evidence of contravention of the Act by the assessee. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure by the AO was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide specific instances or evidence of contravention of the Act by the assessee. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure by the AO was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide specific instances or evidence of contravention of the Act by the assessee. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure by the AO was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide specific instances or evidence of contravention of the Act by the assessee. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure by the AO was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide specific instances or evidence of contravention of the Act by the assessee. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure by the AO was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's ill health. It was held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's submissions before the AO and passed a speaking order instead of an ex-parte order. The matter was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Vavveru Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd., held that interest income earned on deposits from surplus funds is attributable to the society's activities and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of a communication gap due to their accountant, not an intentional non-compliance. Considering principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to allow an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the merits of the case instead of dismissing the appeal in limine. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal held that the AO should have considered the assessee's submissions and evidence, and if unconvinced about the property valuation, should have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer. The DRP also failed to properly consider the evidence.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to afford the assessee an opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal, observing that the assessee pleaded for an opportunity to substantiate their claims with evidence, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to provide a hearing and pass an order after verification.

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Vavveru Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd., held that interest income earned on deposits from surplus funds is attributable to the society's activities and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and substantiate its claims with evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) does not apply to appeals against penalty orders and that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it due to the assessee's medical condition.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, an NRI, claimed non-service of notices and the demise of her representative as reasons for non-prosecution. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal found that the appeal filed before the Delhi Bench was a duplicate of the appeal filed before the Visakhapatnam Bench. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee's reasonable cause. It held that the CIT(A) should have passed a speaking order instead of an ex-parte one, and remitted the matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that since the AO relied heavily on seized documents from a third party and no independent information was gathered, proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was not warranted as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the capital work-in-progress. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. It further ruled that capital gains should be taxed based on the date of registration of the sale deed, not the execution date, as the payment of consideration was not clearly established on the execution date. However, a portion of the DVO's valuation was deemed hypothetical.

The Tribunal held that while Section 269SS prohibits cash receipts in relation to immovable property transfers, the assessee had a reasonable cause under Section 273B. The immediate deposit of cash and payment of capital gains tax indicated the genuineness of the transaction, making the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal condoned a one-day delay in filing the appeal. Considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds, deleting the addition made by the AO.