ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — November 2024

The Tribunal held that sustaining the addition made by the CPC, when the assessee had already made a suo motu disallowance, amounts to double taxation. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to submit evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it upheld the Principal Commissioner's order, stating that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate his claim regarding the cash deposits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the mistake in filing against the incorrect order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's withdrawal petition after the grievance was redressed by the rectification order. The appeal before the CIT(A) had no basis after the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is an instrument of the state, falling under the definition of 'State' as per Article 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, its income is immune from taxation under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is an instrument of the state, falling under the definition of 'State' as per Article 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, its income is immune from taxation under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that salaries paid to employees transferred to petrol bunks should be treated as expenditure for the petrol bunk business, as these employees are responsible for its operations. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It also held that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's replies filed during faceless proceedings.

The Tribunal held that "sufficient cause" for delay should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee commission is an international transaction and should be charged at 0.50% on the corporate guarantee amount. The addition made by the TPO was deleted.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not deciding the appeal on merits, even in the absence of the assessee. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, acting as a commission agent (kaccha arahtia), is eligible for credit of the entire TDS deducted at source, as per CBDT Circular No. 452/1986. The AO was directed to grant the full credit.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The exclusion under Section 80P(4) applies only to cooperative banks claiming deduction, not to deposits made by cooperative societies.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The exclusion under Section 80P(4) applies only to cooperative banks claiming deduction, not to deposits made by cooperative societies.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Since the quantum addition was deleted, the consequential penalty also does not survive and is directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The exclusion under Section 80P(4) applies only to cooperative banks claiming deduction, not to deposits made by other cooperative societies.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on deposits made from the society's own surplus funds in nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). This is because such investments are considered part of the society's business activities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation of being an illiterate agriculturist with no knowledge of IT procedures to be a reasonable cause. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the delay of one day should be excluded as per Section 9(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that it was impossible for the assessee to include the new registration details in the return filed before obtaining them. The CBDT's extension of time for renewal applications meant the old registration remained valid for claiming exemptions until the renewal was communicated.

The Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. This decision was based on a previous order in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year and similar disallowance.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide necessary evidence despite opportunities, they are now ready to do so. Allowing an opportunity would lead to the cause being decided on merits. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek reinstatement if their case is not accepted under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the appellate order was not sustainable as it failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the order to be in writing, state the points for determination, the decision, and the reasons for the decision. The Tribunal found it reasonable to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the AO failed to consider cash deposits subsumed in the turnover when estimating income. It directed the AO to delete a portion of the addition related to this. The Tribunal also reduced the estimated income rate from 8% to 4% on turnover, deeming it to meet the ends of justice.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a commission agent (kaccha arahtia), is eligible for TDS credit on the entire commission income as per CBDT Circular No. 452/1986. The gross sale proceeds should not be treated as the assessee's income for TDS credit purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. Considering the principle of natural justice and the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish a nexus between the seized Excel sheet and the assessee, as the sheet lacked specific details of the assessee or the property. No independent corroborative evidence was brought on record by the AO to link the assessee to the alleged on-money payment.

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