ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — May 2024

The Tribunal held that while the assessee claimed to have withdrawn cash from earlier years, no documentary evidence was produced to demonstrate the flow of receipts and expenditure. Therefore, simply withdrawing money was not sufficient to explain the cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had offered interest income and provided confirmation letters from debtors. However, the AO did not examine the genuineness of these confirmations or verify the disbursement of loans.

The Tribunal held that the ordinary English meaning of 'construction' includes 'building', and ship building falls within the scope of 'business of construction'. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the lower fringe benefit tax rate of 5%.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent documentary evidence to substantiate its claims regarding cash credits not being turnover and its lower profit margins. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) estimating the gross profit at 6% was upheld.

The Tribunal held that a belatedly filed return, if filed before the completion of assessment, must be considered. Simply delaying the filing of the return is not sufficient reason to estimate the profit at a higher rate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to valid reasons. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, adhering to principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not examine the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining that the deposit belonged to the HUF's loan account and not the individual's income. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found the reasons provided for the delay to be unconvincing and not beyond the assessee's control. Consequently, the condonation petition was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to present its case and condoned the delay. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that to meet the principles of natural justice, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's main contention was the lack of sufficient opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A). To uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the fact of the assessee's death and afforded an opportunity of being heard to the legal heir to ensure principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. It found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and therefore, the matter was remitted back.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce supporting vouchers or evidence for the claimed expenses before the revenue authorities or the Tribunal. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) was found to be justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the indexed cost of improvement. The Tribunal found that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the civil contractor, though unregistered, was supported by the contractor offering the amount received as income in his return.

The Tribunal held that to meet the principles of natural justice, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A). The assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard and present their claim regarding the cost of construction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a statutory body under the complete superintendence and control of the State Government, falls under the definition of 'State' as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, its income is immune from taxation under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a statutory body under the complete superintendence and control of the State Government, falls under the definition of 'State' as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, its income is immune from taxation under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that to meet the principles of natural justice, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had clearly demonstrated the sources of the cash deposits through bank statements and other documentary evidence. Therefore, the addition made by the revenue authorities was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that 'miscommunication' is not a sufficient cause to condone such a significant delay. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of due diligence and negligence on the part of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the electricity charges were not sufficiently proved to be for business purposes and upheld the AO's disallowance. Regarding depreciation on ponds, the Tribunal considered them as capital assets (plant and machinery) and allowed depreciation at 15%, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order allowing it as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the additional income offered by the assessee was based on seized material and the assessee's admission, but the AO failed to prove concealment. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found no merit in the AO's order levying penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for accepting cash as per Section 273B, as the entire amount was deposited into the bank and capital gains were offered to tax. Therefore, the penalty was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the matter should be remitted back to the AO to verify the sources of cash deposits, considering the assessee's ill health and the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the department.

The Tribunal held that 'miscommunication' alone is not a sufficient cause to condone such a significant delay. They found no due diligence on the part of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263. It found that water charges were not levied exclusively on the assessee and therefore Section 40(a)(iib) was wrongly applied. Similarly, police guard services were not exclusively provided to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, the penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty order based on this invalid notice was void ab initio.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2015-16. It held that corpus donations were correctly claimed and that unabsorbed depreciation and excess expenditure could be carried forward.

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking Section 263 without considering the bifurcation of land and building components for capital gains computation. The AO was directed to re-examine the issue afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking Section 263 without considering the bifurcation of land and building components for capital gains computation. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing an opportunity to be heard, especially when non-compliance was due to unavoidable reasons. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a statutory body under the complete superintendence and control of the State Government, falls under the definition of 'State' as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, its income is immune from taxation under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a statutory body under the complete superintendence and control of the State Government, falls under the definition of 'State' as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, its income is immune from taxation under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remit the matter back. The CIT(A) was directed to afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a statutory body under the complete superintendence and control of the State Government, falls under the definition of 'State' as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, its income is immune from taxation under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-compliance with notices due to unavoidable reasons. To meet the principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to afford an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to explain the sources of cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present evidence and substantiate their claim. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal found that the original assessment had considered the pisiculture activity and the loan purpose needed further examination. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a detailed review of loan sanction letters and utilization.

The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) should be considered on a per-institution basis if the receipts of each do not exceed Rs. 1 crore. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal allowed the exemption.

The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening the assessment were made available to the assessee and dismissed the challenge to the reopening. The disallowance of prior period expenses was upheld as no provision was made in the books. The disallowance of interest on the sales tax loan was also confirmed as the interest was not paid and the incentive was meant to be interest-free.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals due to the Secretary's medical condition. The appeals are clubbed and will be heard together on their merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals due to the Secretary's medical condition. The appeals are clubbed and will be heard together on their merits.