ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not maintain books of accounts, the profit from unexplained cash deposits should be estimated at 8% of the turnover, not the 23.77% applied by the lower authorities. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-estimate the profit from unexplained cash deposits at 8%.

The Tribunal held that the retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC(3) by the Finance Act of 2005 is prospective. It directed the AO to recompute the deduction under Section 80HHC after reducing both direct and indirect expenses from DEPB receipts.

The Tribunal held that the retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC(3) by the Finance Act of 2005 is prospective in nature. It directed the AO to recompute the deduction under Section 80HHC after reducing both direct and indirect expenses from DEPB receipts.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of interest receivable, finding that the amounts were opening balances and not related to the current year. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal concerning CST claim recoverable and interest, noting that the Assessing Officer had agreed with the assessee's submissions during remand proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 due to the low tax effect. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii), following a coordinate bench decision. It noted that the CBDT circular clarifies such rental income as business income, and unlike the co-owner's case, the CIT(A) did not classify it as income from house property.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A and Rule 8D are not applicable when the exempt income earned by the assessee is Nil. Since the assessee had not earned any exempt income, the disallowance made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution if there was a reasonable cause for adjournment. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that while estimation of income was justified due to the lack of books, the rate should be 3% of the cost of goods sold, aligning with previous consistent views of the Tribunal for similar businesses. The ground regarding agricultural income was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A, stating it's not applicable when exempt income is Nil. It also confirmed the direction to allow deduction under Section 35(1)(i) and depreciation on non-compete fees, following its own previous decisions.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, citing the assessee's failure to appear and effectively pursue the appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s findings were uncontroverted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii), following a coordinate bench decision. It noted that the CBDT circular clarifies such rental income as business income, and unlike the co-owner's case, the CIT(A) did not classify it as income from house property.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii), following a coordinate bench decision. It noted that the CBDT circular clarifies such rental income as business income, and unlike the co-owner's case, the CIT(A) did not classify it as income from house property.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii), following a coordinate bench decision. It noted that the CBDT circular clarifies such rental income as business income, and unlike the co-owner's case, the CIT(A) did not classify it as income from house property.

The Tribunal held that the retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC(3) by the Finance Act of 2005 is prospective in nature. It directed the AO to recompute the deduction under Section 80HHC after reducing both direct and indirect expenses from DEPB receipts.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to grant exemption. It relied on previous ITAT rulings in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, which had allowed similar exemptions.

The Tribunal held that while the disallowance under Section 14A is permissible, it should not exceed the amount of exempt income earned. The issue of TDS credit was remanded to the AO for verification, and interest under Section 234C was directed to be recalculated.

The Tribunal held that while Section 234E was introduced earlier, the power to process and make adjustments for this fee under Section 200A was only effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees levied prior to this date were without authority of law.

The Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) with liberty for the assessee to file a condonation of delay application. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the application on merits and thereafter the appeals, if the delay is condoned.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Following its own coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to the exempt dividend income.

The Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) with liberty for the assessee to file a condonation of delay application. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the application on merits and thereafter the appeals, if the delay is condoned.

The Tribunal held that there cannot be two different definitions for plant and machinery for claiming regular and additional depreciation. If regular depreciation is allowed, additional depreciation should also be allowed on the same additions, especially when they are classified as self-contained units like rolling mill rolls and energy-saving devices.

The Tribunal held that capital gains from the development agreement could not be taxed in AY 2007-08 or AY 2009-10 as the transfer was not complete and the income was already offered to tax in AY 2012-13. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had already claimed deduction u/s 54F in AY 2012-13.

The Tribunal held that while Section 234E was introduced earlier, the power to process and make adjustments for this fee under Section 200A was only effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees levied prior to this date were without authority of law.

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) failed to verify the authenticity of the confirmation letters. Therefore, the issue of interest deduction was set aside to the AO for fresh examination of the seller's books.

The Tribunal held that for a real estate business, the procurement of land for development signifies the commencement of business. Therefore, expenses incurred thereafter are allowable as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the AO's disallowance.

The Tribunal held that there cannot be two different definitions for plant and machinery for claiming regular and additional depreciation. If regular depreciation is allowed, additional depreciation should also be allowed on the same additions, especially when they are classified as independent units.