ITAT Visakhapatnam has held that if working capital adjustment on ALP has been already factored in pricing/ profitability vis-à-vis that of its comparables, then, no separate upward adjustment on outstanding receivables is required.
Read the detailed analysis of Vijapurapu Sudha Rao vs ITO case by ITAT Visakhapatnam. No penalty under section 271D for cash sale if promptly deposited in the bank.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that cooperative society is eligible for deduction U/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act on the interest income received from investment in banks.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that addition towards unexplained labour credits sustained as assessee failed to discharge the onus casted on it and failed to produce material evidence with respect to labour payments and material payments.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that capital gain taxable in the year in which possession of land is granted to the developer vide the original development agreement and not in the year in which supplementary agreement is entered.
ITAT Visakhapatnam in case of Vishnu Srinivasa Rao Kakarla Vs ITO clarifies that AO cannot travel beyond his jurisdiction to verify cash withdrawals when limited scrutiny was for verifying cash deposits.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act not imposable as provision of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act doesn’t apply to income that is treated as income from other sources.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that contributions received for charitable purpose cannot be treated as income u/s 2(24)(iia) of the Act and hence, the provision of section 2(15) do not apply to the corpus fund donations of a charitable institution.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that mere estimate of cost by Departmental Valuer could not constitute material to concealment and therefore levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is not valid.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that the requirement of both the issuance and service of such notice upon the assessee for the purposes of Section 147 and 148 of the Act are mandatory jurisdictional requirements. Order passed is liable to be quashed on account of non-service of notice u/s 147/148.
