ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — August 2019

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, the assessee's appeals were allowed as the audit report was available at the time of assessment. However, for AY 2011-12, the appeal was dismissed due to non-maintenance of proper books of account, violating Section 44AB.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of commission was based on surmises and conjectures, as the revenue authorities did not examine the reasonableness of the commission rate in relation to the turnover. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions made.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal found that the appreciation of 150% or 79% within two years was unreasonable. It directed the AO to compute STCG by deeming the market value at Rs. 43 lakhs, representing a 35% appreciation from the acquisition cost.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to cooperate, the CIT(A) did not address the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's contention of not receiving notice was plausible and that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that her share in the property should be determined as per Muslim Personal Law. The assessee, being the granddaughter of the original owner, is entitled to a share calculated according to this law. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the certificate issued by the Government Qazi of Warangal District for the computation of the assessee's share. Regarding the application of Section 50C, the assessee's counsel stated there was no objection. Consequently, the ground related to Section 50C was treated as not pressed. The Tribunal did not make any specific findings or directions regarding the exemption claim under Section 54F, as this was not a point of contention in the final arguments presented to the ITAT.

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

The Tribunal held that losses from one eligible unit cannot be set off against profits of another eligible unit for the purpose of calculating Section 80IA deduction. The Tribunal also deleted adverse remarks made by the CIT(A) regarding the scope of deduction.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the Dy. CIT, Central Circle, was invalid as he did not have jurisdiction over the assessee. Consequently, the subsequent assessment proceedings were also deemed invalid due to the delay in issuing a valid notice by the jurisdictional AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's request for a reference to the DVO was made at the fag end of the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) correctly opined that a reference to the DVO is not necessary when the Collector of Stamps has already passed an order. Therefore, the addition made by the AO under Section 50C was upheld.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's specific request, permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 148, as the assessment was based on material found in a search of another entity. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It found that the travel and legal expenses were relevant for the business, and the maintenance expenditure was a regular revenue expenditure as per the concession agreement.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision, stating that the genuineness of activities and allowability of exemption are assessed during assessment, not registration. The CIT(Exemptions) should reconsider the application focusing on the trust's objectives.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the confirmation letter for a loan from Shri Sivaprasad Reddy and delete the addition if verified. The addition for the loan from Shri Sandeep Reddy was sustained due to lack of confirmation.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be calculated based on investments that actually generated exempt income, not total investments. It also directed the AO to re-examine interest expenses related to secured loans exclusively committed to business operations.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was granted registration u/s 12A and the assessments were pending due to reopening u/s 147, the matter should be remanded to the AO. The exemption u/s 11 and 12 would be applicable to these pending assessments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to fulfill the conditions for immunity under Section 271AAA(2), specifically regarding the payment of taxes on undisclosed income. Therefore, the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the Dy. CIT, Central Circle, was invalid as he did not have jurisdiction over the assessee. Consequently, the subsequent assessment proceedings were also deemed invalid due to the delay in issuing a valid notice by the jurisdictional AO.

The Tribunal held that proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 148, as the assessment was based on material found in a search of another entity. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was granted registration u/s 12A and the assessments were pending due to reopening u/s 147, the matter should be remanded to the AO. The exemption u/s 11 and 12 would be applicable to these pending assessments.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was granted registration u/s 12A and the assessments were pending due to reopening u/s 147, the matter should be remanded to the AO. The exemption u/s 11 and 12 would be applicable to these pending assessments.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be calculated based on investments that actually generated exempt income, not total investments. It also directed the AO to re-examine interest expenses related to secured loans exclusively committed to business operations.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be calculated based on investments that actually generated exempt income, not total investments. It also directed the AO to re-examine interest expenses related to secured loans exclusively committed to business operations.

The Tribunal held that proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 148, as the assessment was based on material found in a search of another entity. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, including cash books and bank statements. Since the revenue authorities had not examined this new evidence, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that Section 43A of the Income Tax Act is not applicable as the fixed assets were acquired in Indian currency, and the loan conversion was a business decision. The exchange difference was considered a revenue expenditure allowable under Section 37.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was done with the necessary approvals and there was an element of escaped income. However, it found that certain expenditures like interest on car loans and driver salaries in a travel agency business do not attract FBT unless they are exclusively for employee benefit.

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271FA is imposed under Chapter XXI of the Income Tax Act, making it an appealable order. The CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the appeals on maintainability grounds.

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271FA is imposed under Chapter XXI of the Income Tax Act, making it an appealable order. The CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the appeals on maintainability grounds.

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271FA is imposed under Chapter XXI of the Income Tax Act, making it an appealable order. The CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the appeals on maintainability grounds.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was granted registration u/s 12A and the assessments were pending due to reopening u/s 147, the matter should be remanded to the AO. The exemption u/s 11 and 12 would be applicable to these pending assessments.

The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271FA are appealable orders as they fall under Chapter XXI of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the appeals on maintainability grounds.

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271FA is imposed under Chapter XXI of the Income Tax Act, making it an appealable order. The CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the appeals on maintainability grounds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to non-rectification of defects and non-appearance. Following established legal precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, citing the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the appeal effectively. The findings of the CIT(A) were upheld due to the lack of representation and uncontroverted facts.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, including cash books and bank statements. Since the revenue authorities had not examined this new evidence, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's rejection of certain comparables and adoption of stricter filters for ITES was justified. However, it directed the exclusion of E-Infochips Ltd due to abnormal profits and remanded the interest on trade receivables calculation to the TPO/AO.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's rejection of certain comparables and adoption of stricter filters for ITES was justified. However, it directed the exclusion of E-Infochips Ltd due to abnormal profits and remanded the interest on trade receivables calculation to the TPO/AO.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Infosys BPO Ltd and eClerx Services Ltd from the comparables list. It also directed the TPO to reconsider certain companies for inclusion and to allow working capital adjustment.