ITAT Visakhapatnam

Disallowance u/s 14A cannot be made in absence of exempt income

DCIT  Vs Sarita Synthetics & Industries Ltd. (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

No disallowance u/s 14A was called for in case of no exempt income earned by assessee in the relevant assessment years...

Read More

Addition justified for unexplained deposits in undeclared bank account

Smt. Dharipalli Rangamma Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Since the bank account in which assessee made huge cash deposits found during the course of search was not declared by assessee and assessee had not filed return for the year under consideration, therefore, the same constituted seized material so as to invoke section 153C in assessee’s case....

Read More

Addition u/s 68 was justified in respect of unexplained creditors shown as bogus

ITO Vs Sri Tadi Vasudeva Rao (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

AO was justified in making addition under section 68 of credit balance showing in assessees books of accounts against the Nil balance shown by the creditors in their books of accounts as on verification of the books of accounts of the creditor it was found that there was no balance outstanding against assessee and the same indicated that ...

Read More

Section 271FA penalty not leviable in absence of reportable transaction

M/s Guntur District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Vs Director of Income Tax (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Penalty under 271FA was unjustified as there was no requirement to file the AIR in absence of reportable transaction during the financial year and also, department did not make out a case that the assessee had the recorded re portable transactions in the relevant financial year....

Read More

No expenditure against exempt income to be disallowed in absence of exempt income

GVK Power & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs  ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Where there was no dividend income earned during the relevant assessment year, there was no case for disallowing the expenditure relatable to dividend income....

Read More

Notice u/s 148 to a dead person instead of legal heir was not valid

Sri Aemala Venkateswara Rao Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

ssessment made by AO in the name of the legal heir without issuing notice u/ 148 was not valid as the notice under section 148 was required to be issued to a correct person and not to a dead person and the same was not a merely a procedural requirement but was a condition precedent to the impugned notice being valid in law....

Read More

Assessment u/s 153C on non-recording of reasons & unsigned order sheet invalid

Sri Sesha Sai Township P. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Where AO of searched person had not recorded the reasons and order sheet of  AO of assessee though reasons were typed but remained unsigned, notice issued u/s 153C and the assessment order passed by AO was not valid as AO did not comply with the statutory requirement for issue of notice u/s 153C....

Read More

Addition cannot be made for Share Capital as undisclosed Income merely on surmises

ACIT Vs Gowthami Chemicals & Pesticides (P) Ltd. (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

ACIT Vs Gowthami Chemicals & Pesticides (P) Ltd. (ITAT Visakhapatnam)  In this case, the assessee has furnished the confirmation letters explaining the identity of the shareholder, address and sources of income of the contributor to the share capital along with the evidence for land holdings and copies of IT returns in 4 cases before...

Read More

Unsigned reason cannot be treated as reasons recorded

Pinnamaraju Venkatapathi Raju Vs  JCIT (ITAT Vishakhapatnam)

Where AO typed the reasons but not signed the order sheet, there were no reasons recorded for re-opening assessment as required under section 148, therefore, notice issued under section 148 was bad in law, consequently reassessment order was to be annulled....

Read More

Court/Tribunal can dismiss appeal for non-prosecution

Satyanarayana & Ors. Vs CIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Where AO allowed interest on capital and remuneration paid to the partners from the estimated income on the basis of partnership deed, assessment made by AO on estimation of income could not be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for invoking the jurisdiction under section 263....

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,380)
Company Law (5,183)
Custom Duty (7,494)
DGFT (4,055)
Excise Duty (4,280)
Fema / RBI (3,904)
Finance (4,055)
Income Tax (31,285)
SEBI (3,251)
Service Tax (3,484)