ITAT Vishakhapatnam condoned 102 days in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to CIT(A) with an observation that sufficient cause should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice.
Tribunal in the case of Yegneswari General Traders vs. ITO has held that based on CBDT circular no. 452 it is clear that Kaccha Arahtias turnover includes only the gross commission and not the sales effected on behalf of their principals.
The assessee is an individual, engaged in the business as Kerosene dealers in Rajahmundry. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS “Limited Category” to verify the sources for “Cash deposits during demonetisation period”.
ITAT Vishakhapatnam held that addition u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of excel sheet seized from third party without any independent enquiry and independent corroborative evidences is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that revision u/s. 263 quashed as AO already disallowed the claim of depreciation while framing assessment and assessed income at NIL due to proper application of funds.
ITAT Visakhapatnam remitted the matter since addition confirmed by CIT(A) by passing ex-parte order as assessee didn’t appeared nor complied to the notices. Accordingly, matter remitted back for fresh consideration.
The assessee is engaged in the business of letting out buildings both residential and non-residential. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and accordingly statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act.
ITAT Vishakhapatnam allowed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act since amount received from Department of Scientific & Industrial Research [DSIR] is soft loan and hence cannot be considered as grant-in-aid.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that addition under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act deleted as the source for capital investment properly explained by the assessee. Accordingly, addition deleted.
On verification of the bank account copies and the other material available before him, AO noticed that the assessee made cash deposits amounting to Rs. 24,31,000/- by way of Specified Bank Notes [“SBNs”].
