The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that the Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263 where the Assessing Officer has already conducted inquiries and applied his mind to the disputed issues.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that deduction under Section 80P cannot be allowed where the assessee failed to file a valid return of income, attracting the bar under Section 80A(5).
The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that deduction under Section 80P cannot be allowed where the assessee failed to file a valid return of income as required under Section 139 and Section 80A(5).
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant Foreign Tax Credit, observing that delayed filing of Form No. 67 is only a procedural requirement and does not extinguish the substantive claim.
ITAT Visakhapatnam remanded the assessment after holding that documentary evidence relating to cash deposits, members’ records and audit reports required proper verification. The Tribunal directed a fresh assessment without expressing any opinion on the merits.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that delayed filing of Form No. 67 does not justify denial of Foreign Tax Credit where taxes have been paid in the foreign jurisdiction. It ruled that the procedural delay cannot override the substantive benefit available under the DTAA.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that filing a return of income before completion of assessment is mandatory for claiming deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal upheld denial of the deduction where the return was filed only after the assessment.
The Tribunal held that a residential unit does not lose its residential nature merely because it is located within a building housing a nursing home. Proportionate exemption under Section 54F was therefore allowed.
Addition of ₹11.14 crore on account of alleged bogus purchases could not be sustained without first verifying the assessee’s claim that purchases worth approximately ₹11.07 crore had been reversed in its books and were never claimed as a deduction while computing taxable income.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that an inadvertent withdrawal of the penalty appeal instead of the quantum appeal did not defeat settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and treated the appeal as withdrawn.
