ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — December 2024

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal if their case was not accepted under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. However, it clarified that the assessee can seek reinstatement of the appeal if their case is not accepted under the Vivad Se Viswas scheme.

The Tribunal found that the issue of capital gains computation could not be decided without the relevant documents. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal.

The Tribunal held that penalty does not survive when the quantum addition is deleted. Since the quantum addition was partly deleted by the CIT(A), levying penalty on the total under-reported income was not justifiable. The penalty should be restricted to the tax applicable on the remaining income.

The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) is not applicable when the assessee claims to have no taxable income. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's lack of knowledge and inability to respond to notices before the lower authorities, decided to grant one more opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was acting as a commission agent, not a trader. The First Appellate Authority's contradictory findings were noted, and reliance was placed on previous coordinate bench decisions.

The Tribunal held that appellate authorities are not barred from entertaining fresh claims, even if not made in the original return or assessment proceedings. The assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54F on LTCG.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to reinstate if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme is not accepted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) considered adjournment petitions as written submissions and decided the appeal ex-parte. The CIT(A) also failed to adjudicate on the validity of the Section 148 notice.

The Tribunal held that the repayment of a mortgage loan by a legal heir to clear an encumbrance on inherited property constitutes a cost of acquisition. However, the assessee was only entitled to claim her proportionate share (25%) of the repayment, not the 75% claimed.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by adopting a liberal approach, considering the benevolent object of the society. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by adopting a liberal approach, considering the benevolent object of the society. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the 505-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing a typographical error, a pending rectification application, and the COVID-19 pandemic as reasonable causes. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the refund of excess TDS paid as the income was assessed as NIL, even though the return was filed belatedly. However, the disallowance of the carried forward loss was upheld due to the belated filing of the return.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest earned from cooperative banks, following previous decisions. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal deleted an addition of Rs. 2,00,000, finding it was a repayment of a hand loan from the assessee's sister. However, for the remaining Rs. 5,61,000, the Tribunal upheld the addition due to a lack of cogent evidence to substantiate the source of funds.

The Tribunal held that the annual value of a self-occupied property for the owner's residence is NIL as per Section 23(2). The incorrect declaration of notional income in the return was a mistake that should not lead to taxation.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to refile if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be withdrawn. It was clarified that if the Revenue does not accept the assessee's case under the Vivad Se Viswas scheme, the assessee can file a miscellaneous petition to reinstate the appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. However, it clarified that if the assessee's case is not accepted under the Vivad Se Viswas scheme, they can file a miscellaneous petition to reinstate the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's order directing the AO to examine the genuineness of contentions, TDS compliance, and potential disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was valid. The AO had not discussed TDS applicability or inquired about the loans.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 481 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to reinstate if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme is not accepted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 481 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had sufficient cause. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. It was clarified that if the assessee's case is not accepted under the Vivad Se Viswas scheme, they can seek reinstatement of the appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. It was clarified that if the assessee's case is not accepted under the Vivad Se Viswas scheme, they can seek reinstatement of the appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to seek reinstatement if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme is not accepted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient time to the assessee to furnish information before passing an ex-parte order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.