ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — November 2020

The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, finding that the AO had not properly examined the deduction claim under Section 80IB(10) and had not sought sufficient information from the assessee. The CIT's direction to the AO to re-examine the issue was deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity. It remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) to consider the matters afresh after providing the assessee with a hearing.

The Tribunal noted that exemption under Section 11 was allowed in an earlier appeal for the assessee's own case. Therefore, the AO was directed to recompute the income considering the ITAT's earlier directions.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity. It remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) to consider the matters afresh after providing the assessee with a hearing.

The Tribunal held that outstanding receivables do not per se constitute a separate international transaction for transfer pricing purposes. Therefore, imputing interest on such receivables was not justified for the earlier assessment years. However, for later assessment years, the applicability of Section 92B was considered.

The Tribunal held that while outstanding receivables can be considered a separate international transaction, no separate adjustment for interest imputation is required if working capital adjustments have already been granted. This is because working capital adjustments inherently account for the impact of receivables.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT and CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. However, this was subject to the condition that the assessees pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's Care Fund for each appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT and CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. However, this was subject to the condition that the assessees pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's Care Fund for each appeal.

The Tribunal set aside the issue of sundry creditors to the AO, directing the assessee to provide evidence of cheque payments. Grounds related to TDS and unsecured loans were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the issue to the AO for a fresh assessment. The assessee is to be given a fair opportunity to present their case.

The assessee sought permission to withdraw the current appeal before the ITAT. The Tribunal granted the permission as the assessee had no further grievance after the CIT(A) allowed all grounds of appeal in the revised assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT and CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. However, this was subject to the condition that the assessees pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's Care Fund for each appeal.

The Tribunal held that outstanding receivables from AEs constitute a separate international transaction. Interest imputation is to be made at LIBOR + 200 basis points on receivables realized beyond the agreed credit period, both for invoices raised in earlier years and the current year.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating all grounds and without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the penalty notice was not properly issued as the AO failed to strike off the irrelevant portions and did not record satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings. Following Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court decisions, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the stated reasons. While acknowledging the Revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had set aside similar issues for AY 2013-14 to the AO for re-examination. Following this precedent, the Tribunal remitted all issues in the present appeals to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee an opportunity to present its case, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issues were remanded to the AO for de-novo consideration after the assessee provides necessary details.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had set aside similar issues for AY 2013-14 to the AO for re-examination. Following this precedent, the Tribunal remitted all issues in the present appeals to the AO for de-novo consideration.

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

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

The Assessing Officer re-affirmed that the assessee received Rs. 17 Lakhs from the sale of land, not Rs. 75,000/- as shown in the sale deed. Consequently, a Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 16,70,180/- was brought to tax.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had set aside similar issues for AY 2013-14 to the AO for re-examination. Following this precedent, the Tribunal remitted all issues in the present appeals to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly verified the evidence submitted by the assessee and had not called for a remand report from the AO. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the AO for reconsideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, directing that the assessee be given a fair opportunity to present their case and relevant materials.

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals as the dispute was opted to be settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals as the dispute was settled under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The withdrawal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not ultimately resolved, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned. However, the issue regarding the R&D deduction was remanded to the AO for de-novo consideration due to lack of proper documentation.

The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals as the dispute was opted to be settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal, noting that the Pr.CIT had issued Form-3. 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.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of appeals as the assessee opted to settle the dispute under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The withdrawal is subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeals.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of 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.