ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — July 2019

PAYAL JINDAL,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 57/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not validly served on the assessees as the department had knowledge of their new address. Non-service of the notice is a jurisdictional defect and not a procedural one that can be cured by Section 292B.

NEUEON TOWERS LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUJANA TOWERS LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 259/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that there were disparities in the tax demand and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

NEUEON TOWERS LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUJANA TOWERS LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 256/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal found that there were disparities in the tax demand and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

NEUEON TOWERS LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUJANA TOWERS LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 258/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that there were disparities in the tax demand and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

NEUEON TOWERS LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUJANA TOWERS LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 260/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that there were disparities in the tax demand and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

NEUEON TOWERS LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUJANA TOWERS LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 261/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found that there were disparities in the tax demand and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

ITA 2058/HYD/2018[2005-06]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2005-06Remanded

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 12A(2) allows exemption under Section 11 for assessment years prior to registration if the assessments were pending at the time of registration. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer.

OC NL INVEST COOPERATIEF U.A,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD

ITA 86/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that as per the India-Netherlands DTAA, the tax rate, including surcharge and education cess, cannot exceed 10%. Relying on previous tribunal decisions, it ruled that education cess is a form of surcharge and should be included within the treaty's tax limit.

OC NL INVEST COOPERATIEF U.A,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD

ITA 113/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that as per the India-Netherlands DTAA, the tax rate, including surcharge and education cess, cannot exceed 10%. Relying on previous tribunal decisions, it ruled that education cess is a form of surcharge and should be included within the treaty's tax limit.

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1729/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on roads under BOT contracts is a matter of dispute, with conflicting High Court and ITAT decisions. Regarding the provision for maintenance, the Tribunal found that while the obligation accrued, the scientific basis for quantification was not established.

RAJKUMAR JINDAL,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 56/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not validly served on the assessees as the department had knowledge of their new address. Non-service of the notice is a jurisdictional defect and not a procedural one that can be cured by Section 292B.

NEUEON TOWERS LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUJANA TOWERS LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 255/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal found that there were disparities in the tax demand and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

C.SATYANARAYANA REDDY,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1504/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to represent their case before the revenue authorities, leading to the addition of Rs. 4,25,000 as short-term capital gain based on the difference between the SRO value and the sale consideration adopted by the assessee. However, the Tribunal observed that the property in question was in litigation, and therefore, the SRO value could not be applied without verification. Since the assessee had not adequately represented their case before the tax authorities, the Tribunal deemed it fit to grant one more opportunity. Accordingly, the issue was remitted back to the file of the AO with a direction to redo the assessment denovo after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to represent their case properly before the AO. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the addition but remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

NEUEON TOWERS LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUJANA TOWERS LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 257/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal found that there were disparities in the tax demand and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

RAMINDER SING SOIN,SECUNDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 2325/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2011-12Remanded

The ITAT admitted additional evidence and decided to remit the issue back to the AO for verification. The AO is to verify the evidence and provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

NEUEON TOWERS LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUJANA TOWERS LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 262/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found that there were disparities in the tax demand and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

NARAYANLAL BAHETI,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 210/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's duly audited books of account was erroneous as it was based on presumptions without further investigation. The addition made by estimating income was therefore not warranted.

KAMINENI HEALTH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 344/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including MoUs and financial statements, which supported the assessee's claim that the advance was for constructing a hospital and acquiring shares in the demerged company. The issue was remitted to the AO for de novo consideration.

TNS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1100/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the issue of eligibility for Section 10A deduction upon conversion from a DTA unit to an STPI unit was decided in the assessee's favor in its own case for AY 2006-07. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous. However, the computation of the deduction required re-examination.

SANVI INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S SANVI BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1274/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause, specifically the director's involvement with CBI investigations and financial difficulties. The Tribunal then remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

SRI SUNIL KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1787/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the identity of the lender and the banking channel of the transaction were established, the genuineness of the transaction was questioned by the CIT(A) based on the lender's bank statement. The Tribunal found that the assessee cannot be asked to establish the source of the source and that the addition was made on presumptions.

OC NL INVEST COOPERATIEF U.A,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD

ITA 112/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that as per the India-Netherlands DTAA, the tax rate, including surcharge and education cess, cannot exceed 10%. Relying on previous tribunal decisions, it ruled that education cess is a form of surcharge and should be included within the treaty's tax limit.

KOLLA MADHUSUDHAN,NELLORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, NELLORE

ITA 2055/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that a uniform net profit rate cannot be adopted for similar businesses and estimation should be based on case-specific facts. Following its own precedents, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt 3% of the cost of goods sold as the assessee's income.

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMBAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

ITA 2057/HYD/2018[2004-05]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2004-05Allowed

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 12A(2) allows exemption for assessment years prior to registration if the assessments were pending. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11 for those years.

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

ITA 2059/HYD/2018[2005-06]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2005-06Remanded

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 12A(2) allows exemption under Section 11 for assessment years prior to registration if the assessments were pending at the time of registration. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer.

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2146/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on roads under BOT contracts is a matter of dispute, with conflicting High Court and ITAT decisions. Regarding the provision for maintenance, the Tribunal found that while the obligation accrued, the scientific basis for quantification was not established.

MOKAMA MUNGER HIGHWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 2145/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on roads under BOT contracts is a matter of dispute, with conflicting High Court and ITAT decisions. Regarding the provision for maintenance, the Tribunal found that while the obligation accrued, the scientific basis for quantification was not established.

ADAMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 2314/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal directed the AO not to disallow interest under rule 8D(2)(ii) for committed loans and working capital. However, it sustained the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) for administrative expenses related to investments, even without fresh investments.

CANARA SECURITIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2321/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2019AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide specific evidence of the assessee's direct involvement in the CCM malpractices. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on account of contrived losses was deleted. However, the assessee's claim to treat long-term capital gains from share transactions as exempt under Section 10(38) was dismissed.

SATYAM VENTURE ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 864/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed1 Jul 2019AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective if the recipient has offered the income to tax. For the issue of interest on receivables, the Tribunal found insufficient details and remanded the issue for a proper transfer pricing study.

SATYAM VENTURE ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 382/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Jul 2019AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective if the recipient has offered the income to tax. For the issue of interest on receivables, the Tribunal found insufficient details and remanded the issue for a proper transfer pricing study.

SATYAM VENTURE ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 865/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Jul 2019AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective if the recipient has offered the income to tax. For the issue of interest on receivables, the Tribunal found insufficient details and remanded the issue for a proper transfer pricing study.