ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — January 2018

The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that there is no bar in adopting uncontrolled transactions for internal TNMM and directed the TPO/AO to consider non-AE transactions as comparables. The assessee was directed to submit revised segmental profit and loss reports based on capacity utilization and allocation of overheads.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was more than what the assessee admitted, and therefore, it should be considered a mere disallowance of expenditure rather than concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was more than what the assessee admitted, and therefore, it should be considered a mere disallowance of expenditure rather than concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that making a wrong claim for exemption, even if not allowable under Section 115JB, does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s method of averaging profit rates was arbitrary and directed the AO to apply the same profit ratio as offered on disclosed turnovers to the undisclosed turnover for each assessment year. The addition of unaccounted purchases and the Rs. 10 Lakhs payment were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) provided cogent reasons for upholding the 5% net profit estimation, considering the assessee's reported gross profit was significantly higher than the assessed net profit. The Tribunal also noted that profit estimation must be based on the facts of each case.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), agreeing that loans taken by the assessee from closely held companies in which he holds substantial interest would attract the provisions of Section 2(22)(e), even if used for salary payments in his proprietary concern.

The Tribunal held that there was no international transaction concerning the sale of intangible assets as it was an outright sale, allowing grounds related to profit attribution. For management consultancy fees, it followed a previous decision allowing the claim with modifications. Expenses like insurance, travelling, and communication were directed to be excluded from both export and total turnover for Section 10AA computation.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had brought cogent material to justify the estimation of income at 5%, considering the gross profit margin of similar traders and allowing for expenses. Therefore, the Tribunal saw no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the initial onus of proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of creditors for Section 68 additions. Since the revenue did not pursue further inquiries, the additions under Section 68 were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the assessment year, no disallowance under Section 14A could be made. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s method of averaging profit rates was arbitrary and directed the AO to apply the same profit ratio as offered on disclosed turnovers to the undisclosed turnover for each assessment year. The addition of unaccounted purchases and the Rs. 10 Lakhs payment were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s method of averaging profit rates was arbitrary and directed the AO to apply the same profit ratio as offered on disclosed turnovers to the undisclosed turnover for each assessment year. The addition of unaccounted purchases and the Rs. 10 Lakhs payment were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s method of averaging profit rates was arbitrary and directed the AO to apply the same profit ratio as offered on disclosed turnovers to the undisclosed turnover for each assessment year. The addition of unaccounted purchases and the Rs. 10 Lakhs payment were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s method of averaging profit rates was arbitrary and directed the AO to apply the same profit ratio as offered on disclosed turnovers to the undisclosed turnover for each assessment year. The addition of unaccounted purchases and the Rs. 10 Lakhs payment were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s method of averaging profit rates was arbitrary and directed the AO to apply the same profit ratio as offered on disclosed turnovers to the undisclosed turnover for each assessment year. The addition of unaccounted purchases and the Rs. 10 Lakhs payment were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s method of averaging profit rates was arbitrary and directed the AO to apply the same profit ratio as offered on disclosed turnovers to the undisclosed turnover for each assessment year. The addition of unaccounted purchases and the Rs. 10 Lakhs payment were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s method of averaging profit rates was arbitrary and directed the AO to apply the same profit ratio as offered on disclosed turnovers to the undisclosed turnover for each assessment year. The addition of unaccounted purchases and the Rs. 10 Lakhs payment were deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the case back for adjudication on merits, citing bonafide misunderstanding and the need for substantial justice. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal quashed the penalty order as the show cause notice under Section 274 was invalid for not specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law and the addition was not based on proper enquiries. The Tribunal directed the AO to accept the credits as genuine and deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as reasons were not communicated and there was no tangible material. On merits, the Tribunal directed the AO to accept the credits as genuine and deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the reasons were not communicated and the initial satisfaction was borrowed. The Tribunal also found that the addition was not based on facts, as no proper enquiries were made in the assessee's case to disprove the credits claimed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the reasons were not communicated and the AO relied on borrowed satisfaction. On merits, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to disprove the genuineness of the loans, directing the AO to accept the credits as genuine.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as reasons were not communicated and the CIT(A)'s reliance on the company's assessment order was misplaced. The Tribunal directed the AO to accept the credits as genuine.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law and that the revenue had not made sufficient enquiries to disprove the genuineness of the loans. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to accept the credits as genuine.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) for the quantum assessment, remitting the case back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal quashed the penalty order due to a defective show cause notice, following the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the case back for adjudication on merits, citing bonafide misunderstanding and the need for substantial justice. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal quashed the penalty order as the show cause notice under Section 274 was invalid for not specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal restored the Section 14A disallowance to the AO for fresh examination due to calculation errors. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow Section 80IB deductions, following previous ITAT rulings. The ESOP expenditure disallowance was also dismissed, adhering to a Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal restored the Section 14A disallowance to the AO for fresh examination due to calculation errors. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow Section 80IB deductions, following previous ITAT rulings. The ESOP expenditure disallowance was also dismissed, adhering to a Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal restored the Section 14A disallowance to the AO for fresh examination due to calculation errors. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow Section 80IB deductions, following previous ITAT rulings. The ESOP expenditure disallowance was also dismissed, adhering to a Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal restored the Section 14A disallowance to the AO for fresh examination due to calculation errors. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow Section 80IB deductions, following previous ITAT rulings. The ESOP expenditure disallowance was also dismissed, adhering to a Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C is applicable only to the seller for determining the sale consideration and does not allow for adjusting the cost of acquisition with the stamp duty value at the time of purchase. The provisions of Section 48 govern the computation of capital gains based on the actual cost of acquisition.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as there was no nexus between the reasons recorded and the assessment made. The Tribunal also noted that the tax effect was below the threshold for filing appeals as per CBDT circular.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided some basic details and that the CIT(A) confirmed additions despite the assessee's counsel requesting time to file material. In the interest of justice, the issue was remanded to the AO for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal, following its own previous orders for similar assessment years, found that the selection of comparable companies was questionable. It directed the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer to re-examine the transfer pricing adjustments afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and lacked proper discussion on the issues raised. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal confirmed the estimation of income at 8% on gross receipts, allowing interest on capital and remuneration to partners. However, the addition of share capital to the firm was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for examination in the hands of the partners.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's order under Section 263 was bad in law as it lacked proper findings to substantiate that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The CIT cannot initiate proceedings to conduct fishing enquiries.

The Tribunal restored the Section 14A disallowance to the AO for fresh examination due to calculation errors. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow Section 80IB deductions, following previous ITAT rulings. The ESOP expenditure disallowance was also dismissed, adhering to a Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C is applicable only to the seller for determining the sale consideration and does not allow for adjusting the cost of acquisition with the stamp duty value at the time of purchase. The provisions of Section 48 govern the computation of capital gains based on the actual cost of acquisition.

The Tribunal restored the Section 14A disallowance to the AO for fresh examination due to calculation errors. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow Section 80IB deductions, following previous ITAT rulings. The ESOP expenditure disallowance was also dismissed, adhering to a Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 54 exemption for all the flats, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions which state that a residential house can include multiple independent units. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the Assessing Officer wrongly invoked Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x). The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order, based on an assessment that has now been set aside, is not sustainable. Therefore, the penalty order was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order, based on an assessment that has now been set aside, is not sustainable. Therefore, the penalty order was cancelled.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)-2 and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to examine jurisdiction, potentially consolidate with the other pending appeal, and decide on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to present submissions.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be invoked if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.