ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal found that the DRP's order was cryptic and did not adequately adjudicate the functional comparability. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the DRP to determine if the assessee and the comparable companies were in a similar line of business, considering the product profile and business activities.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not have made an addition based on a seized third-party document without independent verification, especially when the AO himself admitted the document indicated a receipt by the assessee, not a payment from unaccounted income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not have made an addition based on a seized third-party document without independent verification, especially when the AO himself admitted the document indicated a receipt by the assessee, not a payment from unaccounted income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that one sale transaction was wrongly included as it pertained to a subsequent year, and another was an amendment of a previous transaction, thus avoiding duplication. The Tribunal also directed that the assessee's share in a co-owned property should be restricted to 1/5th of the sale consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the submissions of both parties, decided to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under section 271D was invalid because the AO did not record satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating such penalty proceedings. The initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271D was therefore considered bad in law.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits and not dismissed it solely on the ground of delay. The delay was condoned with a cost, and the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The ITAT decided to remit the issue back to the AO, finding the large addition prima facie incorrect and the Revenue's information source unclear. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) but imposed a cost on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that filing Form-10 belatedly is a procedural lapse and not mandatory, especially when the form was available before the AO during assessment. Relying on various High Court and ITAT decisions, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider the belatedly filed Form-10.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to file Form 10B and their willingness to have the matter remitted. It was held that only net income should be taxed, not gross receipts, and the matter was sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the assessee's ignorance of legal procedures. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits, as the previous order was not adjudicated on grounds raised.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to explain the sources of cash deposits. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are directed to examine the assessee's claim and related aspects.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment notice and confirmed the addition of Rs. 18,90,105/- as peak credit, with a direction to re-examine a portion of the amount as short-term capital gains.

The ITAT decided to give the assessee another opportunity as the lower authorities did not provide an effective opportunity. The CIT(A)'s order was considered cryptic regarding the delay.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order confirming the disallowance. Since no return of income was filed, the claim under section 80P could not be allowed, and the net income reflected in the books was rightly brought to tax.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to file Form 10B and their willingness to have the matter remitted. It was held that only net income should be taxed, not gross receipts, and the matter was sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 3,10,09,614/-, finding no merit in taxing it in the hands of the firm when it was offered by the partners in their individual capacity. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal considered the fact that the assessment order was rendered null and void by the High Court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) order was cryptic and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits. The tribunal relied on a High Court decision stating that an appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance for departmental recoveries from Orissa Mining Corporation, finding it a contractual adjustment. However, it sustained the disallowance for Hindalco Industries' overloading charges as penal. The issue of excess provision by NALCO was remanded to the AO for verification.