ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal held that Section 80AC, requiring returns to be filed by the due date for certain deductions, is prospective and not applicable to AY 2017-18. Section 80A(5) only mandates making a claim in the return, not necessarily filing it by the due date for the assessment year in question. The case was distinguished from earlier precedents, and the AO was directed to examine the assessee's Section 80P claim on its merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the Ld. CIT(A) should have considered the additional evidence filed by the assessee and passed an order on merits. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence and pass orders on merits.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. This decision was based on the CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, which specifies that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60,00,000/- are not to be filed or pursued. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in this case was approximately Rs. 3,00,000/-, falling below the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the appeal was not maintainable and dismissed it in limine. The Tribunal did not delve into the substantive grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, as the preliminary issue of maintainability was decided against the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that Section 80AC, which requires filing the return by the due date for claiming deductions under Chapter VI-A, was prospective and not applicable to the Assessment Year 2017-18. Section 80A(5) also does not specify a time limit for filing the return for claiming deductions.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned the delay of 1100 days, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause" and the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal remanded the appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits, directing that the assessee be provided sufficient opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reason for rejecting the delay condonation was incorrect. It directed the CIT(A) to condone the 119-day delay and decide the appeal on merits, providing the assessee with another opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also cautioned the assessee to cooperate promptly with revenue authorities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that while the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-appearance, the case ought to have been decided on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration on merits, cautioning the assessee to cooperate in future proceedings.

The ITAT condoned a 21-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's medical reasons. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, instead of deciding it on merits, even though the assessee failed to appear. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee filed significant additional evidence not previously submitted to the AO or CIT(A). Deeming this evidence crucial to the root of the matter, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the additional evidence, directing the AO to pass fresh orders after granting due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own previous rulings in the assessee's own case. It was held that corporate guarantees to associated enterprises, in this specific context, did not constitute international transactions for transfer pricing purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own previous rulings in the assessee's own case. It was held that corporate guarantees to associated enterprises, in this specific context, did not constitute international transactions for transfer pricing purposes.

The Tribunal remitted both the quantum and penalty appeals back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, holding that the CIT(A) should have decided the case on merits. It observed that the AO estimated profit without rejecting the books of accounts under Section 145 and should have considered the assessee's submissions regarding capital sources. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the revenue authorities.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted fact that the Ld. CIT(A) remitted the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO, directing him to verify and examine the documents submitted by the assessee. The AO had also passed a giving effect order based on these directions. The Tribunal found that the arguments of the Ld. DR could not be accepted because Section 251(1) of the Act, as amended, empowers the Ld. CIT(A) to remit the matter back to the AO. Alternatively, the Ld. CIT(A) can call for a remand report as prescribed under Section 46A of the IT Rules. The Tribunal concluded that the Ld. CIT(A) exercised his discretionary powers by remitting the matter back to the AO, which is valid in law. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal remitted both the quantum and penalty appeals back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, holding that the CIT(A) should have decided the case on merits. It observed that the AO estimated profit without rejecting the books of accounts under Section 145 and should have considered the assessee's submissions regarding capital sources. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the revenue authorities.

The Tribunal ruled that Section 80A(5) does not mandate filing by a specific due date for claiming Section 80P deduction for A.Y. 2017-18, and Section 80AC(ii) is prospective from A.Y. 2018-19, thus not applicable to the impugned assessment year. Therefore, the Revenue was not justified in disallowing the deduction solely due to belated filing. The case is remanded to the AO to examine the Section 80P claim on its merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own previous rulings in the assessee's own case. It was held that corporate guarantees to associated enterprises, in this specific context, did not constitute international transactions for transfer pricing purposes.

The Tribunal held that Section 80P is a beneficial provision, and its deduction cannot be denied merely on technical grounds of belated filing of the return, especially when the delay was unintentional and due to statutory audit. It clarified that the amendment to Section 80AC is prospective and does not apply retrospectively. The Tribunal directed the Ld. AO to allow the deduction under Section 80P as claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's explanation for the delay and disposed of the appeal on merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the order of the CIT(A), and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo decision. The Tribunal also cautioned the assessee to cooperate with the AO.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not filed crucial bank account statements before the AO or CIT(A). Recognizing these statements as core material, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo consideration, affording the assessee an opportunity to present the necessary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's explanation for the delay and disposed of the appeal on merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the order of the CIT(A), and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo decision. The Tribunal also cautioned the assessee to cooperate with the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's explanation for the delay and disposed of the appeal on merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the order of the CIT(A), and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo decision. The Tribunal also cautioned the assessee to cooperate with the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the assessee had sufficient cause. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that carbon credits are capital receipts and not business income, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue's appeal was dismissed on other grounds as well.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not filed crucial bank account statements before the AO or CIT(A). Recognizing these statements as core material, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo consideration, affording the assessee an opportunity to present the necessary evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided opportunities for hearing on several occasions, but the assessee neither appeared nor complied with the notices. Despite this, considering the submissions of the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) and the totality of facts, particularly the additions made by the AO, the Tribunal was of the opinion that providing one more opportunity to the assessee before the CIT(A) would serve substantial justice and uphold the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and decision on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The operative direction was to remand the matter to the CIT(A). No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's explanation for the delay and disposed of the appeal on merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the order of the CIT(A), and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo decision. The Tribunal also cautioned the assessee to cooperate with the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal. It found that the revenue did not dispute the utilization of unaccounted cash (admitted by M/s. Vijaynagar Biotech Pvt. Ltd.) for purposes other than the marriage expenditure. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) rightly relied on the precedent of Badam Bhogalinga Swamy v. ACIT, where telescoping was allowed for a director's personal expenditure against the group company's admitted unaccounted income, given the interlacing of funds.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had not properly discussed the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee and had casually observed that the charitable activities were not justified. The Tribunal found that the assessee was carrying out its stated objectives of imparting education and providing relief to the poor.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), excluding the COVID-19 period as per Supreme Court directions, finding the remaining delay of 1080 days to be bonafide based on the detailed affidavit provided by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard for the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw its appeal, considering their decision to opt for the DTVSV scheme and the completion of settlement procedures. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty to approach the Tribunal if the case is not finally settled under the DTVSV for any reason.

The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemptions) failed to properly consider the detailed submissions and audited accounts. It held that the trust, engaged in various charitable activities aligned with its religious objects, was eligible for registration under Section 12A. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed the grant of registration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemptions) failed to properly consider the detailed submissions and audited accounts. It held that the trust, engaged in various charitable activities aligned with its religious objects, was eligible for registration under Section 12A. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed the grant of registration.

The Tribunal found it a fit case to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit and to decide the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal ruled that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were void ab initio because the notice was issued beyond the three-year period, and the income escaping assessment (Rs. 26,72,500/-) did not exceed the Rs. 50 lakh threshold required for extended reassessment under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, adhering to the principles of natural justice.