Loading ITAT cases…
1,780 tribunal orders from the Hyderabad bench in 2021.
Showing 40 of 1,780 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that no transfer of immovable property had occurred as the assessee had not received any consideration nor handed over possession during the relevant assessment year. The agreement was for joint development, and the amount received was a refundable security deposit.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits as per Sections 250 & 251. The Tribunal found that the appeal against the order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 was appealable before the CIT(A) under Section 246A.
The Tribunal allowed 50% of the repair and maintenance expenditure claim, holding that a 10% disallowance was just and proper. The disallowance of development expenditure was upheld due to lack of evidence. The Revenue's appeal regarding undisclosed income was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that no transfer of immovable property had occurred as the assessee had not received any consideration nor handed over possession during the relevant assessment year. The agreement was for joint development, and the amount received was a refundable security deposit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeals were set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed 50% of the repair and maintenance expenditure claim, holding that a 10% disallowance was just and proper. The disallowance of development expenditure was upheld due to lack of evidence. The Revenue's appeal regarding undisclosed income was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits as per Sections 250 & 251. The Tribunal found that the appeal against the order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 was appealable before the CIT(A) under Section 246A.
The Tribunal held that no transfer of immovable property had occurred as the assessee had not received any consideration nor handed over possession during the relevant assessment year. The agreement was for joint development, and the amount received was a refundable security deposit.
The Tribunal held that no transfer of immovable property had occurred as the assessee had not received any consideration nor handed over possession during the relevant assessment year. The agreement was for joint development, and the amount received was a refundable security deposit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's significant expenditure on interiors, plant & machinery, and other essential hotel facilities constituted 'building' for the purpose of Section 35AD. The beneficial provision should be interpreted liberally, and the assessee's contribution was substantial enough to qualify for the deduction.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's case, noting that the CIT(A) had not considered the Tribunal's quantum order deleting the addition. The Tribunal also referred to its own co-ordinate bench's decision that non-payment of self-assessment tax does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) and that section 140A(3) renders the penalty mechanism inapplicable.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 163(1) were initiated beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 149(3) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders treating the assessee as a representative-assessee were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and lacked proper adjudication. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 40A(3) as the assessee failed to justify the cash payment. However, the issue under Section 40(a)(ia) was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification regarding payee assessment.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 163(1) were initiated beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 149(3) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders treating the assessee as a representative-assessee were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not justifiable as it was made solely on the basis of a third-party statement without any corroborating evidence. The reopening of assessment was also questioned.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for soliciting FCCBs was not eligible for amortization under Section 35D and confirmed the disallowance. Regarding the discount on FCCBs, the Tribunal found merit in offsetting foreign exchange loss and directed the AO to reconsider the issue. For Section 14A, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO to compute actual expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for non-compliance, such as lack of knowledge at local construction sites and changes in audit staff, were not valid excuses for mandatory TDS compliance. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the lower authorities was rightly upheld.
The Tribunal deleted the ALP adjustment, finding that no comparable transactions were cited and the TPO incorrectly used SBI rates instead of LIBOR. The disallowance of the 80G claim was restored for verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 163(1) were initiated beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 149(3) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders treating the assessee as a representative-assessee were set aside.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. As the Revenue did not object, the Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search related to the Rs. 10 lakh receipt, and the assessment was unabated, the addition could not be made. Following the precedent set in Kabul Chawla, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. As the Revenue did not object, the Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. As the Revenue did not object, the Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. As the Revenue did not object, the Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. As the Revenue did not object, the Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. As the Revenue did not object, the Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CCDs were received in Euros, not Indian Rupees, and the basis for the 11% interest payment was unsubstantiated. Therefore, the TPO's adoption of LIBOR+200 for computing the arm's length interest rate was upheld.
The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) was correct in reducing the disallowances, the reduction to 1-2% was too low. The Tribunal restored the disallowances to 50% of the amounts added back in the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the CCDs were received in Euros, not Indian Rupees, and the basis for the 11% interest payment was unsubstantiated. Therefore, the TPO's adoption of LIBOR+200 for computing the arm's length interest rate was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of LTCG exemption, finding the transactions to be bogus based on evidence of shell companies and dummy directors. However, the disallowance of financial costs was remanded back to the AO for de novo consideration with directions to admit additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CCDs were received in Euros, not Indian Rupees, and the basis for the 11% interest payment was unsubstantiated. Therefore, the TPO's adoption of LIBOR+200 for computing the arm's length interest rate was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CCDs were received in Euros, not Indian Rupees, and the basis for the 11% interest payment was unsubstantiated. Therefore, the TPO's adoption of LIBOR+200 for computing the arm's length interest rate was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it not attributable to the assessee. It upheld the Principal Commissioner's direction to redo the assessment, agreeing that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries regarding the assessee's turnover.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the pandemic situation, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to furnish the required details to the DCIT (Exemptions). The matter was remitted back to the DCIT for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. This was based on a similar issue in the assessee's own case where the Tribunal emphasized substantial justice over technicalities.
The Tribunal held that the CCDs were received in Euros, not Indian Rupees, and the basis for the 11% interest payment was unsubstantiated. Therefore, the TPO's adoption of LIBOR+200 for computing the arm's length interest rate was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CCDs were received in Euros, not Indian Rupees, and the basis for the 11% interest payment was unsubstantiated. Therefore, the TPO's adoption of LIBOR+200 for computing the arm's length interest rate was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CCDs were received in Euros, not Indian Rupees, and the basis for the 11% interest payment was unsubstantiated. Therefore, the TPO's adoption of LIBOR+200 for computing the arm's length interest rate was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit as the assessee was a trader with back-to-back transactions, and the difference between purchases and sales was already assessed as business income. The Tribunal found the Revenue's stand to be contradictory by accepting 75% of the purchases and 100% of the sales.