ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — January 2020

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's argument regarding lack of opportunity. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo consideration, providing the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration, providing the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the authorities.

The Tribunal found that the disallowance was based on estimation. Considering the nature of business and expenses, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 10% of the total expenditure, amounting to Rs. 1 lakh.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea for a fresh hearing, despite the Revenue's contention that opportunities were provided. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) had to pass an ex-parte order due to the assessee's lack of proper representation. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the omission of the purpose in Form 10 was a technical mistake by oversight. The trust's resolution clearly stated the purpose was to provide palliative care to terminally ill cancer patients.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to produce reconciliation statements and supporting documents to prove the genuineness of the creditor balances.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's ownership of the property should be considered from the date of purchase by her grandparents, making the gain long-term. The Tribunal also ruled that expenses incurred before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(4) are eligible for deduction under Section 54F.

The Tribunal held that if the Rs. 15 lakhs was not paid, it could not be treated as unexplained expenditure. Since no evidence was found that the assessee actually paid the capitation fee, the addition could not be sustained.

The Tribunal condoned the 18-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's medical condition as explained in the affidavit. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper opportunity. While the revenue contended that sufficient opportunities were given and the assessee failed to appear, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the appeal afresh and provide one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate promptly with the CIT(A) proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order based on the record. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the issues regarding sundry creditors and the Section 35(2AB) claim needed further consideration. The Tribunal decided to remand both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's appeal/cross-objection back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the TP adjustment issues related to ground No. 4 to the AO/TPO for reconsideration in line with previous year's directions. It partly allowed grounds related to interest on advances and receivables, and allowed ground No. 8 regarding disallowance under Section 14A.

The Tribunal found that the issues regarding sundry creditors and the Section 35(2AB) claim needed further consideration. The Tribunal decided to remand both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's appeal/cross-objection back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the CIT(A) had no option but to pass an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-appearance. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, providing one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 69 was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that Section 69 applies only to investments not recorded in the books of account. In this case, the assessee had shown total advances of Rs. 25.97 crores to landlords in its balance sheet, with Mr. Rama Krishna Reddy's name appearing in the list of recipients. These entries were also reflected in a 'note book' impounded during the search. Crucially, the AO had not rejected the assessee's books of account and proceeded to make additions based on the P&L Account and Balance Sheet. The Tribunal found that the loans and advances were a balance sheet item and not claimed as expenditure, thus disallowance of expenditure was not applicable. Since the payment to Mr. Rama Krishna Reddy was not doubted by the AO, and the relevant entries were recorded in the books of account, the addition under Section 69 was deleted. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that a proper opportunity was not provided. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that cash payments to daily labourers for wages are not hit by Section 40A(3) as individual labourers likely received less than Rs. 20,000. However, cash payments for material purchases exceeding Rs. 20,000 in aggregate to a person in a day are disallowed.

The Tribunal held that cash payments to daily labourers for wages were not hit by Section 40A(3) as individual labourers likely received less than Rs. 20,000. However, for material purchases, aggregate cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 in a day to a single person attracted Section 40A(3).

The Tribunal set aside the TP adjustment issues related to ground No. 4 to the AO/TPO for reconsideration. It partly allowed the grounds concerning interest on outstanding advances and interest on receivables. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted, and the disallowance of ad-hoc expenditure was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the addition based solely on seized material and a cashier's statement without allowing cross-examination violated natural justice. It also found that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the explanation regarding gifts from relatives for the smaller amount.

The Tribunal found that while the revenue authorities had provided opportunities, the assessee did not cooperate. However, in the interest of justice, the appeal was remitted back to the AO for de novo consideration, cautioning the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the Assessing Officer's determination of the indexed cost of the capital asset.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have sought details regarding cash gifts received by the assessee from relatives. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (CPC) must provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee before making adjustments, especially when the assessee has 12A registration. Since this opportunity was not given, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to present additional evidence, including bank statements, to the Assessing Officer. The matter was remitted back for fresh examination of the loan transaction's genuineness and creditworthiness.

The Tribunal held that it was appropriate for the CIT(A) to obtain the remand report before adjudicating the issue. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals in the interest of justice. It was held that the CIT(A) should provide one more opportunity to the assessees to be heard, and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment was valid, the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were used against them. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for reconsideration.

The Tribunal found the addition at 8% to be on the higher side and reduced the estimated income to 4% of the receipts. For unexplained deposits, it was also held that estimating income at 4% was appropriate given the assessee's business of contract works.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals in the interest of justice. It was held that the CIT(A) should provide one more opportunity to the assessees to be heard, and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals in the interest of justice. It was held that the CIT(A) should provide one more opportunity to the assessees to be heard, and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals in the interest of justice. It was held that the CIT(A) should provide one more opportunity to the assessees to be heard, and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals in the interest of justice. It was held that the CIT(A) should provide one more opportunity to the assessees to be heard, and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment was valid, the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were used against them. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for reconsideration.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that a proper opportunity to be heard was not provided. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found the addition at 8% to be on the higher side and reduced the estimated income to 4% of the receipts. For unexplained deposits, it was also held that estimating income at 4% was appropriate given the assessee's business of contract works.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, including board resolutions and land allotment letters, and found that advances from VHDL were received in the financial year 2011-12, relevant to AY 2012-13, not AY 2013-14. The AO was directed to re-examine the issue of advances from GHCL regarding the period of receipt, accumulated profits, and commercial expediency.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed him to decide the appeal denovo. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the commercial expediency of giving interest-free loans to group companies, especially when the assessee itself had no business activity. Therefore, the disallowance of business expenditure was upheld.

The Tribunal held that there is no distinction between employees' and employer's contribution to PF. If the total contribution is deposited on or before the due date of furnishing the return of income, no disallowance can be made.

The Tribunal held that the outcome of the quantum appeal would impact the penalty appeal. Since the quantum appeal was remitted back, the penalty appeal was also remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision based on merit and law.

The tribunal dismissed the ground related to unexplained sundry creditors due to lack of evidence. For the interest on crane loans, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer to verify if the payee admitted the income and paid tax.

The Tribunal held that the rectification order passed without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard was invalid. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's parents had substantial land holdings and agricultural income, making the gift of Rs. 10.00 lakhs to their daughter financially plausible. The CIT(A)'s reliance on human probability theory without considering the land holdings was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the ownership of the property and the nexus for interest payments needed further examination. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the details submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after examining all necessary documents.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the delay and the lack of opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits after providing a proper hearing.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted because the issues involved in the appeal had been settled in the scrutiny assessment.

The ITAT rejected the adjournment application, noting previous adjournments and ex-parte orders by lower authorities. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, giving the assessee one more opportunity.