ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — August 2020

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the additions were based on admissions made under duress or without conclusive evidence. The Tribunal set aside the penalty orders.

The Tribunal held that a clear finding was required on whether the assessee's activities constituted KPO or BPO, as this impacts the identification of comparable entities for ALP computation. The matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that a clear finding was required on whether the assessee's activities constituted KPO or BPO, as this impacts the identification of comparable entities for ALP computation. The matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the additions were based on admissions made under duress or without conclusive evidence. The Tribunal set aside the penalty orders.

The Tribunal found it difficult to judge the quality of the produce and whether Section 40A(2)(b) was applicable. However, if the transactions were revenue neutral due to both parties being in higher tax brackets, further proceedings would be a futile exercise and could lead to double taxation.

The Tribunal found that the assessee raised grounds before it that were not raised before the CIT(A), and the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT's order was passed ex parte as the assessee failed to appear. Considering that the assessee raised new grounds before the Tribunal, it was decided to provide one more opportunity to argue the case before the CIT.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not have a proper opportunity to present evidence before the lower authorities. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO to allow the assessee to furnish relevant material to prove her claim regarding the nature of the land and the sale consideration.

The Tribunal set aside the penalty orders to the file of the AO, directing re-initiation of penalty proceedings if necessary after the completion of the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal set aside the penalty orders to the file of the AO, directing re-initiation of penalty proceedings if necessary after the completion of the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on tools was negligible and revenue-neutral, allowing its deletion. It also directed depreciation to be granted on the demolished building and discarded furniture as per Section 32(1)(iii) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not obtaining a remand report from the AO before considering additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination of all evidence, including new evidence, and a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the business was not set up as the assessee had not equipped itself to start power generation. However, it directed the AO to proportionately allow expenditure attributable to borrowed funds as a deduction against interest income under Section 57(iii).