ITAT Visakhapatnam Judgments — August 2026

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 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 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 the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the prescribed period under the unamended provisions. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.

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 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal subject to a cost. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back 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 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 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 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 even in cases of non-prosecution, the CIT(A) should decide the appeal based on available material. Since the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, the matter was set aside.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation to be bonafide, noting proximity between the dates of deposit and withdrawal from the wife's account. Since new evidence was filed before the Tribunal, the matter was restored to the AO for verification.

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.

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 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 the reassessment notices issued were invalid due to being barred by limitation and lacking valid approval from the competent authority. Consequently, the reassessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued were invalid due to being barred by limitation and lacking valid approval from the competent authority. Consequently, the reassessment orders were vitiated.

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 if the actual cash deposit in the bank account is less than Rs. 50 lakhs and this fact was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer, then a notice issued under Section 148 after the expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year is invalid and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the reassessment order is also vitiated.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of assessment. However, it directed the AO to reconsider the additions related to capital gains and cash deposits denovo, providing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence and explanations.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte order without considering sufficient bank credits and that the CIT(A) sustained additions without proper examination. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits, and the assessee was willing to provide evidence, the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and examination of records.

The Tribunal held that the selection of the assessee's case for scrutiny was contrary to CBDT guidelines as the conditions for exclusion were met. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the AO was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by the assessee's opening cash balance from previous years. Regarding the property difference, the Tribunal noted the assessee's request for a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) and followed a previous decision where such additions were deleted in similar circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80P should be allowed as the mandatory filing date requirement under Section 80AC was amended and not applicable for the assessment year in question. Regarding the cash deposits, the issue was remanded for verification of sources.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had now provided additional evidence, including lease agreements and confirmation letters from traders, which appeared bonafide. However, as these were not produced before the lower authorities, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal based on the lack of additional evidence, as the assessee had raised purely legal grounds. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid due to the initial lack of jurisdiction, improper transfer of the case, and the issuance of notices beyond the prescribed time limits. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient own capital to cover the advance to his son, and the loan was not taken during the relevant financial year. Therefore, there was no proximity between the borrowed funds and the advance, and the interest disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on April 2, 2022, was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond six years from the end of the assessment year 2015-2016. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause. It also set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for non-prosecution, directing a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the prescribed period of six years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the cash deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A. The Tribunal found that the deposits were from the assessee's pre-school fee collections, which were part of her disclosed income.

The Tribunal found that the AO had incorrectly considered a redeposit of Rs. 10,50,000/- as a fresh deposit. After excluding this amount, the remaining cash deposit of Rs. 12,50,000/- was explained by the sale of gold ornaments and gifts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the matter needs to be remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, providing one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay were vague and general, and did not constitute a 'sufficient cause' as required by law. The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence in prosecuting the case before the lower authorities and in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause for the assessee's lack of awareness. It admitted additional legal grounds concerning the validity of the reassessment notice, which were found to be time-barred.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits with another cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This is because a cooperative bank is also a cooperative society, and Section 80P(4) only excludes cooperative banks licensed to do banking business from claiming deduction under Section 80P.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient opening cash balance from previous years, supported by cash flow statements and balance sheets, to explain the cash deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was erroneous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's genuine medical reasons. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matters for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E for TDS returns pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable. The reasoning was that the enabling provision for computing such fees, by way of amendment to Section 200A(1)(c), was introduced only effective June 1, 2015. Therefore, the charging section, Section 234E, could not be enforced for periods prior to this date, irrespective of when the returns were filed or processed. The Tribunal followed the judgments of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in United Metals vs. ITO, and its own coordinate bench decisions. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the late filing fee levied under Section 234E. Regarding the interest under Section 201(1A), the assessee did not press the ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed. The ratio decidendi is that the mechanism for levying late fees under Section 234E, as incorporated into Section 200A, has prospective effect from June 1, 2015, and cannot be applied retrospectively to defaults occurring before that date.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's medical condition and the potential for substantial justice. The matters were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Finding that ex-parte orders were passed by the lower authorities without proper inquiry or consideration of submissions, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the additions. The cash flow statement was deemed insufficient for the real estate investment, and the lack of evidence for cancellation and refund meant the advance for land purchase was treated as unexplained investment.

The Tribunal held that the mandatory condition of recording satisfaction by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D was not met. Furthermore, the penalty order was found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid because the Assessing Officer obtained approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Chief Commissioner/Director General, as required when more than three years had elapsed since the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, whereas for reassessment beyond three years, approval from the Chief Commissioner or Director General was required. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause. It also set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for non-prosecution, directing a fresh adjudication on merits.