ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal found that the reasons for the delay constituted a sufficient cause and ought to have been condoned by the CIT(A). The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits by passing a speaking order. Since the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that there was no error in quashing the assessment order by following the High Court's decision. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s direction, instructing the AO to first verify if the assessee's gross receipts were below Rs. 1 crore and then consider the claim under Section 10(23C)(iiiad).

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 130 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The Tribunal further held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid as it was issued after April 1, 2021, without following the procedure laid down in Section 148A.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on estimated income, as estimation does not inherently prove concealment. It relied on Supreme Court and High Court precedents.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a previous ruling on identical facts concerning a co-owner. The actual sale consideration was directed to be adopted for computing capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating trade creditors as unexplained cash credits when purchases were accepted as genuine. It also found the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses unjustified as the expenses were recorded and their sources explained.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to furnish better particulars explaining the delay and to argue the case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the issue of notice by the Jurisdictional AO instead of the Faceless AO was sub-judice before higher courts. The assessee also chose not to press grounds challenging the addition on merits.

The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(c) is not attracted to a fresh allotment of shares as it requires the 'receipt' of property, implying prior existence. A fresh allotment creates new shares, which is not a transfer of existing property.

The Tribunal noted the discrepancy in the payee details provided by the assessee and decided to set aside the assessment order. The AO is directed to reconsider the claim after the assessee provides further evidence.

The Tribunal held that the valuation report submitted beyond six months was invalid for building construction additions. For expense disallowances, where no bills were produced, the Tribunal directed a 10% disallowance instead of the 50% sustained by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had conducted proper verification or considered the evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on estimated income, as estimation does not inherently prove concealment. It relied on Supreme Court and High Court precedents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted additional grounds of appeal. It held that the reopening under Section 148 for AY 2013-14 was invalid, and proceedings under Section 153C for AY 2014-15 to 2016-17 were also invalid as they fell beyond the permissible six-year period without fulfilling the conditions of the fourth proviso to Section 153A(1).

The Tribunal held that the High Court's judgment quashing the reassessment notice in the assessee's own case is binding on lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits. The CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to prove the genuineness of creditors.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 69C for unsubstantiated expenditure was incorrect. The assessee had accounted for relevant expenditures and reconciled the data, and the AO had accepted the cash balance after recording these expenditures.

The Tribunal held that the valuation report was invalid as it was submitted beyond six months. Regarding expense disallowances, the Tribunal directed a 10% disallowance instead of the 50% sustained by the CIT(A). For investment in hospital equipment, the Tribunal found the sources declared by the assessee to be sufficient.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and instead dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the inordinate delay were vague, general, and lacked sufficient cause. The Tribunal emphasized that a liberal approach to condoning delay cannot be used to defeat the law of limitation in cases of gross negligence or inaction.

The Tribunal found that the difference in gross receipts and the unproved liabilities required further verification. Therefore, both issues were set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted additional grounds of appeal. It held that the reopening under Section 148 for AY 2013-14 was invalid, and proceedings under Section 153C for AY 2014-15 to 2016-17 were also invalid as they fell beyond the permissible six-year period without fulfilling the conditions of the fourth proviso to Section 153A(1).

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of delayed employee PF/ESI contributions, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services. It also upheld the disallowance of tax audit expenses due to lack of evidence of tax payment by payees. The addition of unsecured loans was sustained as the assessee failed to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with 40 lenders.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bonafide and not intentional. The Tribunal then proceeded to decide the substantive issue regarding additions made under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction. The primary reason for this decision was the absence of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the penalty by relying on several binding precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, Ambala City, and the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Grandhi Sri Venkata Amarendra. The Tribunal found that the issue was no longer res integra in light of these judgments. The Tribunal also noted that in cases of divergent views, the view in favour of the assessee should be followed, citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vegetable Products Ltd. The penalty of Rs. 46.76 lacs imposed by the Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax was struck down. The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating other contentions raised by the assessee, as they became infructuous due to the quashing of the penalty order. The cross-objection of the assessee was also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the valuation report was invalid as it was submitted beyond six months. Regarding expense disallowances, the Tribunal directed a 10% disallowance instead of the 50% sustained by the CIT(A). For investment in hospital equipment, the Tribunal found the sources declared by the assessee to be sufficient.

The Tribunal held that the valuation report was invalid as it was submitted beyond six months. Regarding expense disallowances, the Tribunal directed a 10% disallowance instead of the 50% sustained by the CIT(A). For investment in hospital equipment, the Tribunal found the sources declared by the assessee to be sufficient.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for reconsideration. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deemed to have no basis as the quantum additions on which it was levied were themselves set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in adopting the developer's construction cost as the full value of consideration. It ruled that the FMV as on the date of transfer, or as per Section 50D and the analogy of Section 45(5A), should be considered, aligning with the assessee's computation.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 41(1) was not sustainable. It followed the Gujarat High Court's ruling that for Section 41(1) to apply, there must be actual remission or cessation of liability during the previous year, and the Assessing Officer cannot treat outstanding trade liabilities as ceased to exist without disturbing the underlying purchase transactions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of notice by the Jurisdictional AO instead of the Faceless AO was sub-judice before higher courts. The assessee also chose not to press grounds challenging the addition on merits.

The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had conducted proper verification or considered the evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted additional grounds of appeal. It held that the reopening under Section 148 for AY 2013-14 was invalid, and proceedings under Section 153C for AY 2014-15 to 2016-17 were also invalid as they fell beyond the permissible six-year period without fulfilling the conditions of the fourth proviso to Section 153A(1).

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted additional grounds of appeal. It held that the reopening under Section 148 for AY 2013-14 was invalid, and proceedings under Section 153C for AY 2014-15 to 2016-17 were also invalid as they fell beyond the permissible six-year period without fulfilling the conditions of the fourth proviso to Section 153A(1).

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted additional grounds of appeal. It held that the reopening under Section 148 for AY 2013-14 was invalid, and proceedings under Section 153C for AY 2014-15 to 2016-17 were also invalid as they fell beyond the permissible six-year period without fulfilling the conditions of the fourth proviso to Section 153A(1).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that there was no error in quashing the assessment order by following the High Court's decision. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not submitted sufficient evidence before the AO and the proceedings before the CIT(A) were ex parte. To provide an opportunity to demonstrate the source of funds, the issue was set aside to the AO for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine and rebut the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. The matter was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its deposits with another co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 126 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after considering the reasonable cause explained by the assessee. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked based solely on bank passbook entries when the assessee has not maintained books of account. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the sale consideration was likely subsumed in the total revenue recognized. However, due to the assessee's failure to provide sufficient reconciliation, the issue was remitted back to the AO for further verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, finding the reasons to be bonafide and beyond the assessees' control. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment notices as barred by limitation.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that an identical issue for a prior assessment year was decided in favour of the assessee, allowing the benefit of telescoping for unaccounted expenditure. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 were invalid because the approval for reopening was obtained from an authority not specified under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, especially when the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year.