ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — April 2019

The Tribunal found that estimation of income was justified due to the lack of proper books of account. Following a precedent from a similar case, the Tribunal directed the income to be estimated at 3% of the cost of goods put to sale.

The Tribunal found that estimation of income was justified due to the lack of books of account. Following a precedent where a similar business's income was estimated at 2.5% of turnover, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground for estimation at 3%.

The tribunal considered the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on a CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals.

The Tribunal held that for disallowance of interest on advances to associate concerns, business expediency and availability of interest-free funds are crucial, and the revenue failed to controvert these. For disallowance under Section 14A, the disallowance should be restricted to the exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that while Section 14A permits disallowance, the disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income earned. For advances to associate concerns, business expediency and availability of interest-free funds were considered, leading to no disallowance.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not verify the evidence submitted by the assessee to explain the cash credits. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal rejected the ground related to addition of Rs. 3,46,594/- as it did not arise from the current assessment order. The addition of Rs. 93,000/- for hand loans was rejected as it was an agreed addition. The addition for low personal drawings was restricted to Rs. 30,000/-.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not passed any orders on the Section 154 applications, despite information on the IT portal indicating rejection. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for consideration.

The Tribunal held that exclusion of internet bandwidth charges from both export and total turnover is justified, following High Court decisions. It also held that deduction under Section 10A is allowable even if export proceeds are brought in beyond six months, provided the competent authority (RBI) has approved or not rejected the extension.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed/not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. To ensure justice, the case was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found uncertainty regarding whether the assets claimed were part of plant and machinery. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for verification.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has the power to dismiss an appeal as withdrawn, as this action amounts to confirming the assessment order under Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee's contention was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E was not permissible for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as per the prevailing law at that time. Therefore, the fees levied were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E was not permissible for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as per the prevailing law at that time. Therefore, the fees levied were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's alternative plea that any disallowance of expenditure would increase business profits, which are eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10). Therefore, the assessee is eligible for a higher deduction under Section 80IB(10) to the extent of the disallowed expenditure.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's alternative plea that disallowances would increase business profits, which are eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10). Therefore, the assessee is eligible for higher deduction under Section 80IB(10) to the extent of the disallowed expenditure.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's alternative plea that disallowances would increase business profits, which are eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10). Therefore, the assessee is eligible for higher deduction under Section 80IB(10) to the extent of the disallowed expenditure.

The Tribunal found uncertainty regarding whether the assets claimed were part of plant and machinery. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not passed any orders on the Section 154 applications, despite information on the IT portal indicating rejection. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for consideration.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E was not permissible for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as per the prevailing law at that time. Therefore, the fees levied were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E was not permissible for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as per the prevailing law at that time. Therefore, the fees levied were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E was not permissible for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as per the prevailing law at that time. Therefore, the fees levied were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that in similar circumstances, it has upheld the estimation of income at 3% of the cost of goods put to sale. Following a coordinate bench decision, the AO was directed to estimate net profit at 3% of the cost of goods put to sale.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80IB. It followed the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case, which clarified that there is no continued requirement for an assessee to maintain SSI status throughout the entire period.

The Tribunal held that in similar circumstances, it has upheld the estimation of income at 3% of the cost of goods put to sale. Following a coordinate bench decision, the AO was directed to estimate net profit at 3% of the cost of goods put to sale.

The Tribunal held that while the possibility of the wife having personal savings cannot be entirely ruled out, it cannot be accepted without any evidence. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made without first declaring the assessee as an assessee in default under Section 201(1). Following the Delhi High Court's decision, the Tribunal found the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) to be declaratory and curative with retrospective effect.

The Tribunal found that a 5% estimation of income from liquor business was high. Following its own previous decisions, it directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the income from liquor business at 3% of the cost of goods put to sale.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny without proper approval, violating CBDT directives. The Tribunal directed the AO to accept the assessee's books of account as no discrepancies were found regarding bank deposits and turnover within the limited scope.

The Tribunal, following a previous decision for AY 2011-12, directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 25.00 lakhs, considering the assessee's consistent losses and eventual closure of business.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 26 lakhs as the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor were established. The issue regarding the remaining loan amount was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the creditor's creditworthiness.