ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — June 2024

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without adjudicating the merits. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without adjudicating the merits. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for prior period expenses, relying on previous ITAT decisions. The matter of TDS credit was remitted to the AO for verification, while the interest under Section 234C was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), even considering the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent administrative issues. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for prior period expenses, relying on its own previous decisions. The matter of TDS credit was remitted to the AO for verification, while the interest under Section 234C was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed not to have been given sufficient opportunity to present his case. To ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for prior period expenses, relying on its own previous decisions. The matter of TDS credit was remitted to the AO for verification, while the interest under Section 234C was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for prior period expenses, relying on its own previous decisions. The matter of TDS credit was remitted to the AO for verification, while the interest under Section 234C was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for prior period expenses, relying on its own previous decisions. The matter of TDS credit was remitted to the AO for verification, while the interest under Section 234C was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to explain the sources of cash deposits and that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard, adhering to principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A) and therefore, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of being heard.

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 of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the revenue authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed receipts and expenditures, and even if a provision for expenses was excluded, the trust had fulfilled the 85% utilization criteria. The admission of additional income under Section 132(4) was not considered concealment in the absence of incriminating material.

The Tribunal found 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) to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide a hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Regarding the disallowance of loss on written-off stock, the Tribunal allowed the petition for additional evidence and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a remand report from the AO. The disallowance of interest expenditure was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 5,89,79,965/-, which was a loan from a financial institution and added to the capital account, could not be considered unexplained income under Section 68 as the loan amount itself was not disputed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's explanation and medical certificate for the delay, and decided the appeal on merits. The CIT(A)'s dismissal in limine was not appreciated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an Urban Cooperative Bank, was not restricted by the RBI circular that prohibited District Central Cooperative Banks from accepting SBNs. Therefore, the cash deposits were valid.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's submission of a fresh application and the CBDT circular, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's submission of a fresh application and the CBDT circular, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh examination.