ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of fly ash was not to be taxed as revenue income, considering the restrictions on its utilization as per government notifications. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(iib) was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of fly ash was not to be taxed as revenue income, considering the restrictions on its utilization as per government notifications. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(iib) was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of fly ash was not to be taxed as revenue income, considering the restrictions on its utilization as per government notifications. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(iib) was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of fly ash was not to be taxed as revenue income, considering the restrictions on its utilization as per government notifications. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(iib) was also allowed.

The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in the Revenue's appeals. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the issue by applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ACIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which pertains to charitable institutions undertaking commercial activities. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in the Revenue's appeals. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the issue by applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ACIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which pertains to charitable institutions undertaking commercial activities. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned a 94-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation of lack of proper knowledge and pending tax proceedings. It allowed the admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication on merits, taking into account the newly submitted evidences.

The Tribunal condoned the 169-day delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. Following a similar precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remitting the case back to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits, emphasizing that Section 249(4)(b) regarding advance tax would not apply if the assessee had no taxable income.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found the CIT(Exemption)'s order to be a "non-speaking order" lacking specific findings or material analysis to substantiate the rejection, thus violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh, reasoned order after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation under the Income Tax Act to dispose of appeals on merits and lacks the power to summarily dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Citing judicial precedent, it set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the 503-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's genuine reasons for the delay. Considering the assessee's past non-compliance before the CIT(A) and the substantial demand, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to present their arguments and evidence. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the remand proceedings.

The Tribunal observed the assessee's non-compliance with notices at both assessment and first appellate stages. However, in the interest of natural justice and considering the substantial demand, it granted one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case before the CIT(A). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The ITAT found that the assessee had opted for physical communication in her Form 35, and despite this, the CIT(A) sent notices only via email, thus denying her a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Considering this procedural lapse and the assessee's medical certificate indicating ill-health, the ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for re-adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a fair opportunity of hearing.

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine for the delay. The ITAT condoned the 271-day delay, noting that the assessee had not received communication of the assessment order. The ITAT remitted the case back to the CIT(A) to decide on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 124 days in filing the appeal, considering that the assessee did not receive communication about the assessment order and had filed a condonation petition. The matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the case on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) was justified in passing ex-parte orders due to the assessee's repeated non-appearance. However, considering the assessee's request and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted both the quantum and penalty appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee, while cautioning the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the condonation of delay petition. Exercising principles of natural justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 167 days and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the case on merits, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a directive to grant the assessee a fair hearing. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in the proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) could pass orders based on available records.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT (E) rejected the applications without a speaking order and the assessee faced insufficient time for compliance. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remitted both cases back to the CIT (E) for fresh consideration, with a caution to the assessee for prompt cooperation.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT (E) rejected the applications without a speaking order and the assessee faced insufficient time for compliance. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remitted both cases back to the CIT (E) for fresh consideration, with a caution to the assessee for prompt cooperation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a directive to grant the assessee a fair hearing. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in the proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) could pass orders based on available records.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) was justified in passing ex-parte orders due to the assessee's repeated non-appearance. However, considering the assessee's request and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted both the quantum and penalty appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee, while cautioning the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had posted the case for hearing on seven occasions, but the assessee failed to appear or provide any submissions. Considering the grounds of appeal and the assessee's plea for another opportunity, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A).

The ITAT found the CIT(Exemption)'s order to be non-speaking, cryptic, and mechanical, violating principles of natural justice as it lacked specific findings on missing information or how the trust's activities deviated from its objectives. The ITAT set aside the order and remanded the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh, reasoned order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had presented certain documents, like ledgers, that were not adequately considered by the lower authorities. Consequently, the case was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh on merits, granting the assessee a final opportunity to produce all relevant documents and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention that the purchased land was agricultural land was not supported by the sale deed. The sale deed, dated 06.11.2015, described the property as 'factory land' and not agricultural land. Therefore, the exception carved out in Section 194IA for agricultural land did not apply. Regarding the machinery, while the Tribunal agreed in principle that TDS might not be applicable to machinery, it could not accept the assessee's contention as nothing in the sale deed indicated a specific payment of Rs. 99 lacs for machinery. The assessee also conceded not to press the challenge regarding the consideration paid for the building. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. The issue of ex-parte dismissal was not explicitly decided but the appeal was decided on merits after considering the arguments presented.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal, acknowledging that the underlying grievance regarding the disallowance of exemption under Section 11 had been resolved. The CIT (Exemption) had condoned the delay in filing Form 10BB, and the Income Tax Officer had rectified the assessment, bringing the total income to Nil.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(E)'s rejection order was a non-speaking order as it did not specify which activities were non-compliant. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing another opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was non-speaking and violated the principles of natural justice. It lacked specific findings to substantiate the rejection of the trust's application.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in passing a best judgment assessment under Section 144 without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee filed its return, even if belatedly. The assessment order was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal observed contradictory views between the Assessing Officer's remand report (which accepted ledger accounts) and the CIT(A)'s finding. Given the assessee's failure to furnish relevant supporting bills for sales and purchases of maize, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, directing a fresh opportunity for the assessee to explain and provide evidence.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both parties and the evidence of the assessee opting for the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024" and the non-objection from the Department, allowed the withdrawal request. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A of the IT Rules by admitting additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to comment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order could not be upheld.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee's income is notified under Section 10(46), the provisions of Section 10(23C) and Section 11 regarding utilization of accumulated income do not apply. Therefore, the accumulated income cannot be taxed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the lack of physical service and the assessee's limited digital literacy. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on the merits, specifically to verify the source of bank deposits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A of the IT Rules by admitting additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to comment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order could not be upheld.

The tribunal found the CIT (Exemptions)'s rejection order cryptic and prima facie contrary to facts, as it failed to provide reasons for disregarding the documentary evidence of charitable activities. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT (Exemptions) for reconsideration, granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The tribunal found the CIT (Exemptions)'s rejection order cryptic and prima facie contrary to facts, as it failed to provide reasons for disregarding the documentary evidence of charitable activities. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT (Exemptions) for reconsideration, granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing.