UNIQUE RAIL ROAD CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of travel and vehicle hire charges was not sustainable as the AO did not doubt the genuineness of the expenditure. The issue of double claim for site and other expenses was restored to the AO for verification. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the assessment order being passed in the name of the assessee company, as the assessee failed to inform the AO about the amalgamation.
What were the facts?
The assessee company claimed expenses for travel, tours, and vehicle hire. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed 10% of these expenses as ad-hoc disallowance. The AO also disallowed expenses claimed under 'Site and Other Expenses' alleging double claim. The assessee argued that the assessment order was passed in the name of a non-existent entity due to amalgamation.
What were the issues?
Whether ad-hoc disallowances of expenses are justified without doubting the genuineness of the expenditure, and whether an assessment order passed in the name of an amalgamating company is void if the AO is not informed of the amalgamation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.308 citing416 ITR 613 · 2019 · SC · Read judgment
- PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd.95 citing443 ITR 194 · 2022 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad
आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-
1. 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Unique Rail Road Consultants Private Limited, C/o. P. Murali and Co., Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500082. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle – 1(3), Hyderabad.
More judgments on Section 44AB
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Income Tax Officer, WD-3(3), Pmt Building vs Oring Industrial Networki Ng Private…ITA 181/PUN/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ITO, Lower Parel vs Shreeji Paper Corporation, Dn NagarITA 2966/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Devayatbhai Kalotara, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, RajkotITA 679/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026