ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — July 2024

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 passed an ex-parte order without properly appreciating the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have considered the assessee's explanation for the delay, which was due to unawareness of the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the case on merits rather than dismissing it ex-parte, and therefore, the matter was remitted back for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the case on merits rather than dismissing it ex-parte, and therefore, the matter was remitted back for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it ex-parte, and therefore, remitted the matter back for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that Form-10-IE is only mandatory for assessees with business or professional income, not for salaried employees. Therefore, the assessee correctly exercised the option for the new tax regime by filing the return of income.

The Tribunal held that the sale of agricultural land, even if divided into plots, should be treated as capital gains and not business income, as there was no evidence of the assessee engaging in real estate trading.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn because the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 Lakhs. The dismissal was with liberty to the Department to file a Miscellaneous Application if exceptions to the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the statutory time limit. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on this invalid notice is void ab initio.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly appreciate the AO's remand report, which indicated that the cash deposits were from sales made on a cash basis. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal found the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay unconvincing and unreasonable. The assessee failed to be vigilant about the proceedings, and the CIT(E) had rightly dismissed the appeal for non-furnishing of information.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were made from a jointly availed bank loan and its subsequent repayment after liquidating stock. The assessee had adequately explained the source of the funds.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned from investments made out of the society's operational income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the Totgars case and followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision.

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 CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it ex-parte. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that as per Section 80A(5) of the Income Tax Act, a claim for deduction under Chapter VI-C must be made in the 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the pandemic situation. The appeals were then to be adjudicated on merits, with one appeal being taken as the lead case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the assessee's plea for a proper hearing, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in future proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the pandemic situation. The appeals were then to be adjudicated on merits, with one appeal being taken as the lead case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the pandemic situation. The appeals were then to be adjudicated on merits, with one appeal being taken as the lead case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the pandemic situation. The appeals were then to be adjudicated on merits, with one appeal being taken as the lead case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it ex-parte. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits, considering the medical certificate provided. This was done to provide an opportunity to the assessee in accordance with natural justice principles.

The Tribunal held that Section 80AC mandates filing the return of income on or before the due date specified under Section 139(1) for claiming deductions under Chapter VI-A. Filing belatedly under Section 139(4) does not entitle the assessee to such deductions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. It was held that the assessment proceedings were invalid due to an unsigned notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to provide specific details of the bank where the cash deposits were made. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO to provide these details and for the assessee to furnish supporting evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to verify stock details based on updated audited books of accounts, as the initial assessment was based on un-updated books.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, especially after the revised return was processed and exemption was granted. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's submissions regarding the sale of agricultural land and the additional grounds of appeal. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).

The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits, considering the medical certificate provided. This was done to provide an opportunity to the assessee in accordance with natural justice principles.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in excluding certain comparables and agreeing that the Associated Enterprise (AE) could be compared with the comparables selected by the TPO.