ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — May 2018

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that co-owners inheriting property are not an AOP and their joint sale of property for disposal does not constitute a business activity. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that capital gains arise when possession is transferred to the developer, which occurred in 2003 after tenants were vacated. The builder's readiness to hand over possession in 2009-10, without fulfilling JDA terms and obtaining approvals, does not trigger capital gains.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee was a sub-contractor and upheld the estimation of income at 5% of gross receipts, considering it reasonable net of all deductions.

The Tribunal held that capital gains arise when possession is transferred to the developer, which occurred in 2003 after tenants were vacated. The builder's readiness to hand over possession in 2009-10, without fulfilling JDA terms and obtaining approvals, does not trigger capital gains.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), following the Supreme Court's decision in Collector vs. MST Khatiji & Others. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a previous ruling by a coordinate bench. The ruling stated that no disallowance under Section 14A is to be made if there is no claim of exempt income.

The Tribunal rejected the ground challenging the validity of Section 153A proceedings, citing previous findings of a search and seizure operation. The issue regarding Section 50C was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for earlier years was based on a mere change of opinion and presumption, without any new material. Therefore, the reopening was bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for earlier years was based on a mere change of opinion and presumption, without any new material. Therefore, the reopening was bad in law.

The Tribunal held that capital gains arise when possession is transferred to the developer, which occurred in 2003 after tenants were vacated. The builder's readiness to hand over possession in 2009-10, without fulfilling JDA terms and obtaining approvals, does not trigger capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the assessee made payments through banking channels and offered profit on sales to tax. It held that once sales are accepted, corresponding purchases cannot be disallowed without independent verification of sales genuineness.

The Tribunal held that capital gains arise when possession is transferred to the developer, which occurred in 2003 after tenants were vacated. The builder's readiness to hand over possession in 2009-10, without fulfilling JDA terms and obtaining approvals, does not trigger capital gains.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), following the Supreme Court's decision in Collector vs. MST Khatiji & Others. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that capital gains arise when possession is transferred to the developer, which occurred in 2003 after tenants were vacated. The builder's readiness to hand over possession in 2009-10, without fulfilling JDA terms and obtaining approvals, does not trigger capital gains.

The Tribunal held that capital gains arise when possession is transferred to the developer, which occurred in 2003 after tenants were vacated. The builder's readiness to hand over possession in 2009-10, without fulfilling JDA terms and obtaining approvals, does not trigger capital gains.

The Tribunal held that capital gains arise when possession is transferred to the developer, which occurred in 2003 after tenants were vacated. The builder's readiness to hand over possession in 2009-10, without fulfilling JDA terms and obtaining approvals, does not trigger capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for earlier years was based on a mere change of opinion and presumption, without any new material. Therefore, the reopening was bad in law.

The Tribunal held that capital gains arise when possession is transferred to the developer, which occurred in 2003 after tenants were vacated. The builder's readiness to hand over possession in 2009-10, without fulfilling JDA terms and obtaining approvals, does not trigger capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for earlier years was based on a mere change of opinion and presumption, without any new material. Therefore, the reopening was bad in law.

The Tribunal held that capital gains arise when possession is transferred to the developer, which occurred in 2003 after tenants were vacated. The builder's readiness to hand over possession in 2009-10, without fulfilling JDA terms and obtaining approvals, does not trigger capital gains.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the interest of justice and the principle of substantial justice. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the matter deserved to be set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-consideration. The Tribunal noted that the payments to government agencies do not attract Section 194C and that only commission paid to middlemen could potentially be considered for disallowance.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw its appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not sustainable as the AO did not have any tangible material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. The AO's reasons for reopening were based on information received from another department without independent application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not sustainable as the AO did not have any tangible material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. The AO's reasons for reopening were based on information received from another department without independent application of mind.

The Tribunal held that if employees' PF & ESI contributions are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made. Therefore, the order of the Principal CIT was set aside.

The Tribunal held that capital gains arise when possession is transferred to the developer, which occurred in 2003 after tenants were vacated. The builder's readiness to hand over possession in 2009-10, without fulfilling JDA terms and obtaining approvals, does not trigger capital gains.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the loan waiver was capital in nature and not taxable as trading receipt. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions stating that Section 41(1) and Section 28(iv) are not applicable in such cases.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in a similar case, holding that an estimation of 3% of the cost of goods put to sale is a reasonable estimation of income for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that orders passed under Section 271FA are not appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee was directed to show cause why the appeals should not be dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that capital gains did not arise in the impugned assessment year because the development agreement did not materialize, possession was not handed over, and the agreement was eventually cancelled. The issue of the source of investment for land purchase was set aside for fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that there was no mistake apparent from the record to justify rectification under Section 154. The Tribunal found no evidence that the agricultural land was owned by the assessee in his individual capacity, and the paper book indicated the income was earned by the HUF.

The Tribunal held that capital gains did not arise in the impugned assessment year because the development agreement did not materialize, possession was not handed over, and the agreement was eventually cancelled. The issue of the source of investment for land purchase was set aside for fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee can make a claim by filing a revised return, and the AO must consider it. The claim for director's remuneration should be allowed in AY 2012-13 on the principle of accrual, even if the directors offered the income in AY 2013-14.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly addressed the issue of charging interest on partner's balances. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh examination of the source of funds and the charging of interest, with directions to disallow excess interest if borrowed funds were at a higher rate than charged to partners. The issue of charging interest on bad and doubtful debts was confirmed in favour of the assessee, as it was decided against the Revenue in earlier years.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim an adjustment in the valuation of land to the extent of 30% as per the guidelines for valuation of Immovable Properties, 2009. The Tribunal noted that the property was sold with disputes involving outside parties claiming ownership, and some disputes remained unsettled at the time of sale, evidenced by pending court cases and subsequent court orders. Therefore, the first ground of appeal was allowed. Regarding advocate fees, the Tribunal noted that while vouchers were self-made, the legal disputes were genuine. The issue was remitted back to the AO to obtain proper confirmation from the lawyers with complete details and verify the expenses. For the expenditure on land levelling and construction, the Tribunal noted the existence of a compound wall and room as evidenced by the FIR and an engineer's affidavit. This issue was also remitted back to the AO to determine the value with the assistance of the DVO and allow the same as cost incurred. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that orders passed under Section 271FA are not appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee was directed to show cause why the appeals should not be dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that capital gains did not arise in the impugned assessment year because the development agreement did not materialize and was eventually cancelled. The issue of the source of investment for land purchase was set aside for fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that orders passed under Section 271FA are not appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee was directed to show cause why the appeals should not be dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that orders passed under Section 271FA are not appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee was directed to show cause why the appeals should not be dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that capital gains did not arise in the impugned assessment year as the development agreement did not materialize and was ultimately cancelled. The issue of the source of investment for land purchase was set aside for fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim an adjustment in the valuation of land to the extent of 30% as per the guidelines for valuation of Immovable Properties, 2009. The Tribunal noted that the property was sold with disputes involving outside parties claiming ownership, and some disputes remained unsettled at the time of sale, evidenced by pending court cases and subsequent court orders. Therefore, the first ground of appeal was allowed. Regarding advocate fees, the Tribunal noted that while vouchers were self-made, the legal disputes were genuine. The issue was remitted back to the AO to obtain proper confirmation from the lawyers with complete details and verify the expenses. For the expenditure on land levelling and construction, the Tribunal noted the existence of a compound wall and room as evidenced by the FIR and an engineer's affidavit. This issue was also remitted back to the AO to determine the value with the assistance of the DVO and allow the same as cost incurred. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the capital gains were not taxable in the impugned year as the conditions for transfer under Section 2(47) were not fulfilled. The addition of Rs. 6,50,000/- as unexplained credit was remanded for fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the turnover belonged to the assessee's business and rejected the claim of redeposited withdrawals. Regarding profit estimation, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the rate of 2.2% as accepted by the assessee in a subsequent assessment year.

The Tribunal held that orders passed under Section 271FA are not appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee was directed to show cause why the appeals should not be dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that orders passed under Section 271FA are not appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee was directed to show cause why the appeals should not be dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the capital gains were not taxable in the impugned year as the conditions for transfer under Section 2(47) were not fulfilled. The addition of Rs. 6,50,000/- as unexplained credit was remanded for fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of paying only Rs. 11,00,000/- in cash was not acceptable as the vendor's records and a copy of the agreement indicated Rs. 21,00,000/-. The assessee's consent to both versions of the agreement further supported the vendor's claim.

The Tribunal held that capital gains did not arise in the impugned assessment year because the development agreement did not materialize, possession was not handed over, and the agreement was eventually cancelled. The issue of the source of investment for land purchase was set aside for fresh examination by the AO.