ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — September 2020

ANKAA REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 583/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD vs ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 31/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that if interest-free funds are available and mixed with interest-bearing funds, it's presumed investments are made from interest-free funds. The matter was remitted to the AO for verification of available interest-free funds.

D.E.SHAW INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMELY KNOWN AS D.E.SHAW INDIA SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2206/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that Persistent Systems Ltd. is functionally dissimilar and should be excluded as a comparable. For CAT Technologies Ltd., the issue of whether its revenue from software development services exceeds 75% was remitted to the AO/TPO for examination. The issue regarding adjustment at the international transaction level was also remitted.

PRIME ACCESS TECNHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 865/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the AO to allow the assessee to present its case and complete the assessment de novo after providing an opportunity of hearing.

ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 795/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that if interest-free funds are available and mixed with interest-bearing funds, it's presumed investments are made from interest-free funds. The matter was remitted to the AO for verification of available interest-free funds.

ANKAA REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 587/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the request for time by the assessee, which was acknowledged by the AO, did not constitute wilful non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified.

ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2132/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal held that if interest-free funds are available and mixed with interest-bearing funds, it's presumed investments are made from interest-free funds. The matter was remitted to the AO for verification of available interest-free funds.

ANKAA REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 588/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as the assessee had sought time and it was not a case of wilful non-compliance. The request for time was acknowledged by the AO, and there was no further notice issued to the assessee before the penalty order.

ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDEABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 636/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that if interest-free funds are available and mixed with interest-bearing funds, it's presumed investments are made from interest-free funds. The matter was remitted to the AO for verification of available interest-free funds.

ANKAA REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 585/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

NAMRATA N SHIRODKAR,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1355/HYD/2018[01/04/1989 to 27/07]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the assessment was initiated under Section 158 BD, the penalty provisions under Section 158 BFA(2) are applicable. However, it found no positive finding with substantial evidence that the assessee had concealed income, as the seized paper was not from the assessee's possession and lacked her signature. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's argument regarding lack of proof of payment.

ANKAA REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 589/HYD/2019[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as the assessee had sought time and it was not a case of wilful non-compliance. The request for time was acknowledged by the AO, and there was no further notice issued to the assessee before the penalty order.

JANARDHAN REDDY SAMA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 792/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not disposed of the appeal on merits and directed the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after considering the evidence to be filed by the assessee and giving a fair opportunity of hearing.

DST WORLDWIDE SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2234/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that certain companies included by the TPO were functionally dissimilar and should be excluded. After exclusions, the average margin of the remaining comparables was found to be within the acceptable range of the assessee's margin.

ANKAA REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 584/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as the assessee had sought time and it was not a case of wilful non-compliance. The request for time was acknowledged by the AO, and there was no further notice issued to the assessee before the penalty order.

ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING CO. PVT.LTD., HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1752/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that if interest-free funds are available and mixed with interest-bearing funds, it's presumed investments are made from interest-free funds. The matter was remitted to the AO for verification of available interest-free funds.

ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 671/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that if interest-free funds are available and mixed with interest-bearing funds, it's presumed investments are made from interest-free funds. The matter was remitted to the AO for verification of available interest-free funds.

ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 825/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that if interest-free funds are available and mixed with interest-bearing funds, it's presumed investments are made from interest-free funds. The matter was remitted to the AO for verification of available interest-free funds.

ANKAA REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 586/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as the assessee had sought time and it was not a case of wilful non-compliance. The request for time was acknowledged by the AO, and there was no further notice issued to the assessee before the penalty order.

NSL RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 988/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA is allowable from the gross total income and should not be restricted to business income. It also found that the issue was debatable and thus not rectifiable under Section 154.

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

ITA 2372/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that service charges retained by payment gateways are normal banking charges for facilitating electronic payments and not commission. Therefore, Section 194H is not applicable, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not sustainable.

K.K.S.ORGANICS,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

ITA 702/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Remanded

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 in future proceedings.

G. ASHOK REDDY, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 564/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that penalty was not leviable on the deleted addition of Rs. 10 Lakhs. For the remaining additions, it was found that there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, considering the exemption for FDR interest and the timing of income recognition for gross receipts.

K.K.S.ORGANICS,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

ITA 703/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Remanded

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 in future proceedings.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS-3, HYDERABAD vs CALVARY TEMPLE, HYDERABAD

ITA 2221/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request for withdrawal of appeals, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the Revenue can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS-3, HYDERABAD vs CALVARY TEMPLE, HYDERABAD

ITA 2220/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request for withdrawal of appeals, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the Revenue can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

BALAJI INDUSTRIAL & AGRICULTURAL CASTINGS, HYDERABAD,SECUNDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 227/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding lack of opportunity. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration to provide a proper hearing.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS-3, HYDERABAD vs CALVARY TEMPLE, HYDERABAD

ITA 2222/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request for withdrawal of appeals, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the Revenue can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs HEAD INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 464/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were not emanating from the Assessing Officer's or CIT(A)'s orders. The additions made by the AO were under different sections, and no disallowance was made under Section 14A.

ROTARY CLUB OF HYDERABAD SERVICE TRUST,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1144/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CPC applied the maximum marginal rate without proper examination and without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the issue was remitted to the AO for assessment under Section 143(3).

SARWAN SINGH KLAIR,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1147/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2011-12Withdrawn

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous due to subsequent relief from the Revenue. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

GAYATRI RATNA JOINTVENTURE,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 71/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed the contract was cancelled and the mobilization advance was returned, but failed to provide evidence. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration.

CALVARY TEMPLE FOUNDATION,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HYDERABAD

ITA 234/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.

VIRCHOW LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2141/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case.

JEEVAN SHAKTI CHIT FUND PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 707/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and the assessee had not been given a fair opportunity to present its case and documentary evidence. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

MISHRA POLYPACKS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 517/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order on merits and the assessee requested an opportunity to submit further details. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for a fresh decision.

INDUR INTIDEEPAM MACS FEDERATION LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

ITA 758/HYD/2018[2006-07]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2020AY 2006-07Allowed

The Tribunal held that claiming deduction under Section 80P is permissible even if the return is filed in response to a notice under Section 148, as long as the claim is made in the return. Section 80A(5) does not mandate filing within the original due dates for claiming this deduction.

INDUR INTIDEEPAM MACS FEDERATION LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

ITA 759/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that claiming deduction under Section 80P is permissible even if the return is filed in response to a notice under Section 148, as long as the claim is made in the return. Section 80A(5) does not mandate filing within the original due dates for claiming this deduction.

MODI SHELTERS PVT LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1292/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2020AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It dismissed the grounds related to the 'Emerald Park' and 'Emerald Park Annexe' projects, while remitting the issue of deduction for 'Palm Springs Phase-II' back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

VANAM SRISAILAM,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2136/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had not effectively cooperated with the CIT(A) in the past. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate.

VANAM NARASIMHA MADIGA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2133/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had not effectively cooperated with the CIT(A) in the past. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate.

VANAM SRIRAMULU,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2134/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had not effectively cooperated with the CIT(A) in the past. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate.

VANAM SHANKAR,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2135/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had not effectively cooperated with the CIT(A) in the past. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate.

VANAM ESWAR,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2131/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2020AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had not effectively cooperated with the CIT(A) in the past. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate.

VANAM ESWAR,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2132/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2020AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had not effectively cooperated with the CIT(A) in the past. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate.

SURYA SUBBARAMA CHANDRASEKHAR VEMURU VENKATA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2280/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2020AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal, while noting that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), decided to remit the matter back to the AO in the interest of justice to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard.

RAINBOW CHILDREN'S MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 698/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the AO passed an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 without making any adjustments. Therefore, the assessee's appeal against the Section 263 order was rendered infructuous.

RAMOJI FOUNDATION,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-3, HYDERABAD

ITA 1766/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2020AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal is conditional, allowing the assessee to reapply if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

SERENE COUNTY WELFARE ASSOCIATION,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 954/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2020AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for hearing, but the assessee failed to appear. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits.

NNF - STATE CHAPTER,HYDERABAD vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

ITA 2200/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's objectives, aimed at advancing knowledge in Neonatology, fall under 'objects of general public utility' as defined in Section 2(15) of the Act. It relied on High Court decisions that educational activities benefiting a section of the public are considered charitable.