ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — December 2019

SRINIVAS NARLA,SIDDIPET vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIDDIPET

ITA 424/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the rejection of books of accounts and estimation of income were justified, the rate of estimation needed adjustment. Following precedent, the net profit was directed to be estimated at 3% of the cost of goods sold.

RANDEEP GAMPA,SECUNDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1218/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal deleted the addition for perquisite value of furniture, finding it was the assessee's own accommodation. For the cash credits, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's alternative claim that they were trade advances and directed the AO to estimate income on these credits as turnover.

SHANKAR ENGINEERING & FABRICATORS,HYDERABAD vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 442/HYD/2012[2007-08]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2019AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that if the payments included reimbursement for material and transportation, those components would not attract TDS provisions. However, the disallowance for labour charges would apply if the assessee failed to prove such reimbursements.

LEON CROP SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1793/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2019AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without proper opportunity. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration with one more opportunity to the assessee.

LEON CROP SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2158/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2019AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without proper opportunity. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration with one more opportunity to the assessee.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs SAI PAVANI CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 356/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2019AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found the nature of the assessee's work unclear and remitted the matter back to the AO for a de novo consideration. The AO is to pass a speaking order detailing the nature and scope of the contractual work before deciding the eligibility for deduction.

INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY HANAMKONDA,WARANGAL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1124/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2019AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea for a fresh hearing and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings to avoid an ex-parte decision.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs SAI PAVANI CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 355/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2019AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found the nature of the assessee's work unclear and remitted the matter back to the AO for a de novo consideration. The AO is to pass a speaking order detailing the nature and scope of the contractual work before deciding the eligibility for deduction.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs SAI PAVANI CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 354/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2019AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal found the nature of the assessee's work unclear and remitted the matter back to the AO for a de novo consideration. The AO is to pass a speaking order detailing the nature and scope of the contractual work before deciding the eligibility for deduction.

INDERJEETH SINGH, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1672/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow its previous directions regarding bad debts and telescoping of expenses. It directed the AO to allow 30% of gross advances and interest as bad debts and to telescope disallowed commission expenses as sources for fresh advances.

SYNERGIES CASTINGS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1827/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on moulds, given their short lifespan of approximately 12 months due to wear and tear in high-temperature manufacturing, should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions that treated expenditure on moulds as revenue in nature.

INDERJEETH SINGH,HYDERABAD vs ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1671/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow its previous directions regarding bad debts and telescoping of expenses. It directed the AO to allow 30% of gross advances and interest as bad debts and to telescope disallowed commission expenses as sources for fresh advances.

RAJESH MALIK, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-14(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 210/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2007-08Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution, citing the principle that an appeal requires effective pursuit, not just filing. No submissions or evidence were presented on merits.

AKKANAPALLY NARSAIAH, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-1, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

ITA 303/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea for a fresh hearing, noting that the CIT(A) had indeed passed an ex-parte order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

SRIDHAR RAO MAROJU,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1014/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technical grounds. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for adjudication on merits.

THE TIRUPATI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(I&CI), HYDERABAD

ITA 104/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the omissions and errors were due to recent computerization and modernization, not wilful default. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271FA was set aside.

THE TIRUPATI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(I&CI), HYDERABAD

ITA 106/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the omissions and errors were due to recent computerization and modernization, not wilful default. Therefore, considering the provisions of Section 273B, the penalty was set aside.

THE TIRUPATI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(I&CI), HYDERABAD

ITA 109/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the omissions and errors were due to recent computerization and modernization, and there was no wilful default on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

QULIQUTBSHA MEDICAL & GENERAL,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 926/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost and cooperating with the AO.

INDERJEET SINGH,HYDERABAD vs ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1655/HYD/2017[2005-06]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2005-06Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow its previous directions regarding bad debts and telescoping of expenses. It directed the AO to allow 30% of gross advances and interest as bad debts and to telescope disallowed commission expenses as sources for fresh advances.

SYED ANEESUDDIN, HYD,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 598/HYD/2015[2005-06]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2005-06Partly Allowed

The Tribunal deleted the additions related to hand loans from Syed Khaja Faizuddin and Moosa Khaleem Khan, finding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors proved through documentary evidence and banking channels. The addition related to Mohd Abdul Kareem was also partly deleted.

THE TIRUPATI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(I&CI), HYDERABAD

ITA 107/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the omissions and errors were due to recent computerization and modernization, and there was no wilful default on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

SYNERGIES CASTINGS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1826/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on moulds, given their short lifespan of approximately 12 months due to wear and tear in high-temperature manufacturing, should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions that treated expenditure on moulds as revenue in nature.

SYNERGIES CASTINGS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1825/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on moulds, given their short lifespan of approximately 12 months due to wear and tear in high-temperature manufacturing, should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions that treated expenditure on moulds as revenue in nature.

SYNERGIES CASTINGS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1824/HYD/2017[2011-2012]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2011-2012Allowed

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on moulds, given their short lifespan of approximately 12 months due to wear and tear in high-temperature manufacturing, should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions that treated expenditure on moulds as revenue in nature.

SYNERGIES CASTINGS LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIR-3(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 178/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on moulds, given their short lifespan of approximately 12 months due to wear and tear in high-temperature manufacturing, should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions that treated expenditure on moulds as revenue in nature.

LEKKALA PURUSHOTAM NAIDU,TIRUPATHI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI

ITA 1675/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2004-05Partly Allowed

The Tribunal remanded the issue of 6% expenditure disallowance back to the AO for a categorical finding on the applicability of Section 44AE. The addition of Rs. 2 lakhs for a loan was also remitted for de novo consideration.

LEKKALA PURUSHOTAM NAIDU,TIRUPATHI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI

ITA 1674/HYD/2016[2003-04]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2003-04Partly Allowed

The Tribunal remanded the issue of 6% expenditure disallowance back to the AO for a categorical finding on the applicability of Section 44AE. The addition of Rs. 2 lakhs for a loan was also remitted for de novo consideration.

LEKKALA PURUSHOTAM NAIDU, TIRUPATHI,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI

ITA 1676/HYD/2016[2005-06]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2005-06Partly Allowed

The Tribunal remanded the issue of 6% expenditure disallowance back to the AO for a categorical finding on the applicability of Section 44AE. The addition of Rs. 2 lakhs for a loan was also remitted for de novo consideration.

INDERJEET SINGH,HYDERABAD vs ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1654/HYD/2017[2004-05]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2004-05Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow its previous directions regarding bad debts and telescoping of expenses. It directed the AO to allow 30% of gross advances and interest as bad debts and to telescope disallowed commission expenses as sources for fresh advances.

INDERJEET SINGH,HYDERABAD vs ASST,COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1653/HYD/2017[2003-04]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2003-04Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow its previous directions regarding bad debts and telescoping of expenses. It directed the AO to allow 30% of gross advances and interest as bad debts and to telescope disallowed commission expenses as sources for fresh advances.

THE TIRUPATI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(I&CI), HYDERABAD

ITA 108/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the omissions and errors were due to recent computerization and modernization, and there was no wilful default on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

THE TIRUPATI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(I&CI), HYDERABAD

ITA 105/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the omissions and errors were due to recent computerization and modernization, and there was no wilful default on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

THE TIRUPATI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,TIRUPATI vs DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(I&CI), HYDERABAD

ITA 103/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed19 Dec 2019AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the omissions and errors were due to recent computerization and modernization, and there was no wilful default on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

SRAVAN KUMAR KESHA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-12(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1632/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the 19-day delay in filing the appeal before it. It also condoned the 99-day delay before the CIT(A), finding the reason for delay (overseas project) to be reasonable and supported by evidence.

CENTRAL PUBLISHERS,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1117/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2019AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the unfortunate circumstances. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.

LALITHA REDDY PALLERLA,SECUNDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

ITA 2326/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission for a fresh opportunity, considering it in the interest of justice. The matter was remitted back to the AO to provide an opportunity for hearing and to refer the property valuation to the DVO if requested by the assessee.

FAROOQI FAMILY TRUST,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 338/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: Disposed18 Dec 2019AY 2007-08Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a proper opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The matter was remanded to the AO for a decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

SRI VLS IT SERVICES, HYD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1087/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2019AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) which had confirmed part of the additions made by the AO. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to support claims for deletion of sustained additions.

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 832/HYD/2015[2006-07]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2019AY 2006-07Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conclusively prove that transactions were arranged to produce more than ordinary profits. Therefore, the disallowance of part of the deduction claimed under Section 10A was not justified.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 864/HYD/2015[2005-06]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2019AY 2005-06Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove that the transactions were arranged to generate more than ordinary profits. Therefore, the disallowance of part of the Section 10A deduction was not justified.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 869/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2019AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove that transactions were arranged to produce more than ordinary profits and that the invocation of Section 80IA(10) was not justified. The disallowance of part of the Section 10A deduction was deemed unjustified.

G J TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1610/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2019AY 2006-07Remanded

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A), detailed written submissions were filed. The CIT(A) should have addressed these submissions. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the AO.

SRI VLS IT SERVICES, HYD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1083/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2019AY 2007-08Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) which had confirmed part of the additions made by the AO. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to support claims for deletion of sustained additions.

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 831/HYD/2015[2005-06]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2019AY 2005-06Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove that transactions were arranged to produce more than ordinary profits and that the invocation of Section 80IA(10) was not justified. The disallowance of part of the Section 10A deduction was deemed unjustified.

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 834/HYD/2015[2008-09]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2019AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove that transactions were arranged to produce more than ordinary profits and that the invocation of Section 80IA(10) was not justified. The disallowance of part of the Section 10A deduction was deemed unjustified.

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 836/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2019AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove that transactions were arranged to produce more than ordinary profits and that the invocation of Section 80IA(10) was not justified. The disallowance of part of the Section 10A deduction was deemed unjustified.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 865/HYD/2015[2006-07]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2019AY 2006-07Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove that transactions were arranged to produce more than ordinary profits and that the invocation of Section 80IA(10) was not justified. The disallowance of part of the Section 10A deduction was deemed unjustified.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 867/HYD/2015[2008-09]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2019AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove that transactions were arranged to produce more than ordinary profits and that the invocation of Section 80IA(10) was not justified. The disallowance of part of the Section 10A deduction was deemed unjustified.

ANNAPURNA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 833/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: Disposed17 Dec 2019AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove that transactions were arranged to produce more than ordinary profits and that the invocation of Section 80IA(10) was not justified. The disallowance of part of the Section 10A deduction was deemed unjustified.