ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — May 2018

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 expenditure incurred on issue of FCCB is revenue expenditure allowable under Section 37(1). It also held that foreign exchange loss suffered by the assessee is an expenditure allowable under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal remitted the issue of Section 40A(3) disallowance back to the AO for verification of payments made to employees. The issue of loss on sale of fixed assets was also remitted to the AO for verification of new contentions raised by the assessee. The disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation loss was allowed in favour of the assessee, following previous tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred on issue of FCCB is revenue expenditure allowable under Section 37(1). It also held that foreign exchange loss suffered by the assessee is an expenditure allowable under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to previous years where the ITAT had ruled in favor of the assessee, considering them a developer eligible for Section 80IA deduction. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to previous years where the ITAT had ruled in favor of the assessee, considering them a developer eligible for Section 80IA deduction. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to previous years where the ITAT had ruled in favor of the assessee, considering them a developer eligible for Section 80IA deduction. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, held that charging interest on receivables without a basis for the credit period and when the primary service transactions were at arm's length was not justified. Consequently, the interest adjustment was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable if no exempt income is earned. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed in part by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable if no exempt income is earned. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed in part by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under section 153C were bad in law due to the absence of a satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessments framed under section 153C were declared void ab-initio.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 40A(3) as the genuineness of the payments was not doubted and the assessee's explanation regarding exceptions under Rule 6DD was accepted. The addition under Section 68 was also deleted as the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the credits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did receive Rs. 2 lakhs per month in cash, as declared in her sworn statement. However, the income offered based on bank deposits was inconsistent. The Tribunal directed the AO to assess income based on official salary and the declared professional income of Rs. 24 lakhs per annum.

The Tribunal held that the land was effectively purchased by the partnership firm in 1990 via a sale deed, and thus the cost of acquisition should be based on this date, not the original allotment date. Regarding the interest disallowance, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for verification of whether the rental income from the property acquired with the loan was offered to tax by the firm.

The Tribunal held that the sale consideration adopted by the AO based on the DVO's valuation was excessive. It directed that the actual sale consideration of Rs. 75 lakhs should be considered for calculating capital gains, and the deduction under Section 54F should be based on this amount.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating an outstanding liability as unexplained and invoking Section 41(1)(a) without establishing cessation of liability. The rejection of additional evidence by the CIT(A) was also found to be improper.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did receive Rs. 2 lakhs per month in cash, as declared in her sworn statement. However, the income offered based on bank deposits was inconsistent. The Tribunal directed the AO to assess income based on official salary and the declared professional income of Rs. 24 lakhs per annum.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) due to circumstantial difficulties, not intentional non-compliance. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the matter ex-parte. To serve the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted a difference of opinion among ITAT benches regarding the profit estimation percentage for liquor traders. Following a recent decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the income at 3% of the cost of sales.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A must be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. It noted that Rule 8D should not be applied blindly, especially when it leads to absurd results.

The tribunal rejected the argument that no adjustment could be made due to group losses, citing lack of applicability of relied upon case laws. However, the tribunal remitted the issue of the TPO's method to consider segmental results. The tribunal also held that corporate guarantee was not an international transaction for the relevant assessment year, following coordinate bench decisions.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows, the penalty order was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to deduct tax at source was supported by a bonafide reason, considering the advice of the Chartered Accountant and the peculiar circumstances of post-dated cheque encashments. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271C was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to deduct tax at source was supported by a bonafide reason, considering the advice of the Chartered Accountant and the peculiar circumstances of post-dated cheque encashments. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271C was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to deduct tax at source was supported by a bonafide reason, considering the advice of the Chartered Accountant and the peculiar circumstances of post-dated cheque encashments. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271C was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to deduct tax at source was supported by a bonafide reason, considering the advice of the Chartered Accountant and the peculiar circumstances of post-dated cheque encashments. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271C was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to deduct tax at source was supported by a bonafide reason, considering the advice of the Chartered Accountant and the peculiar circumstances of post-dated cheque encashments. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271C was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to deduct tax at source was supported by a bonafide reason, considering the advice of the Chartered Accountant and the peculiar circumstances of post-dated cheque encashments. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271C was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to deduct tax at source was supported by a bonafide reason, considering the advice of the Chartered Accountant and the peculiar circumstances of post-dated cheque encashments. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271C was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under section 153C were bad in law due to the absence of a satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessments framed under section 153C were declared void ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under section 153C were bad in law due to the absence of a satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessments framed under section 153C were declared void ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under section 153C were bad in law due to the absence of a satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessments framed under section 153C were declared void ab-initio.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did receive Rs. 2 lakhs per month in cash, as declared in her sworn statement. However, the income offered based on bank deposits was inconsistent. The Tribunal directed the AO to assess income based on official salary and the declared professional income of Rs. 24 lakhs per annum.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law as they failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT Vs M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law as they failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT Vs M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows.

The ITAT allowed the admission of additional evidence, finding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing it earlier. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment renders the reassessment order invalid. This procedural lapse violates established legal precedents.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid as it failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. This decision followed precedents from the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned and directed the AO to examine necessary expenditure. Regarding depreciation on non-compete fee, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing depreciation on one component based on earlier ITAT decisions, while rejecting the other based on High Court rulings.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rejected the appeal memos as defective due to non-rectification of the initial defect and the absence of the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were treated as dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest expenditure, finding no nexus between the borrowed funds and any potential interest income taxable under 'income from other sources'. The assessee failed to establish that the expenditure was incurred for earning taxable income.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made if the employee contributions are paid before the due date for filing the return of income, following previous Tribunal decisions and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and held that no disallowance can be made if payments were made before the due date of filing the return of income, even if beyond the stipulated due date under Section 36(1)(va). The order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to a lack of natural justice. The appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not applicable when no exempt income is earned. It also directed that expenditure not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) should be considered under Section 35(1). The claim under Section 10B was allowed subject to the outcome of pending High Court proceedings.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rejected the appeal memos as defective due to non-rectification of the initial defect and the absence of the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were treated as dismissed.

The Tribunal deleted additions for share application money where confirmation letters were filed and identity was not doubted, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. However, additions for share application money from individuals who did not file confirmations were upheld. Additions for unsecured loans were also confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no merit in the Revenue's grounds. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were reflected in ledger accounts and that the AO's reconstruction of the ledger was not justified. The disallowance of construction costs was also deleted as the expenses were through banking channels and proved genuine.