ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — February 2021

The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 to a deceased person is invalid. Consequently, any assessment order passed based on such an invalid notice is not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed Form 10CCB and the books of account during the assessment proceedings. The AO should have considered these documents before disallowing the deduction. The CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte.

The Tribunal held that LIC premiums paid from a joint account are eligible for deduction under Section 80C if claimed by the assessee. It also held that the cash found was likely from substantial withdrawals from the bank for which the source was not in doubt.

The Revenue requested to withdraw the appeal as the assessee sought to settle the case under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal with a condition for potential revival.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn because the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal also clarified that the Revenue could seek reinstatement of the appeal if the assessee's case was not accepted under the scheme.

The Tribunal decided to keep the rectification issue alive at the Assessing Officer's end. This is to be decided afresh after the final outcome of the pending Supreme Court proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of sales returns. It noted that the Assessing Officer's stance was contradictory, as the sales were accepted in a preceding year, and reversing the sale now would unsettle a settled position.

The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained cash deposits to the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee's telescoping plea. For the expenditure claim, an 8% lumpsum disallowance was deemed appropriate instead of 12%.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal to be withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstatement if the Vivad se Vishwas application was rejected.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A read with Rule 8D applies only in relation to an assessee's exempt income. Since the assessee had no exempt income, the disallowances made under Section 14A were deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A read with Rule 8D applies only in relation to an assessee's exempt income. Since the assessee had no exempt income, the disallowances made under Section 14A were deleted.

The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) is mandatory, even if the assessee does not request it. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal granted further relief of Rs. 2.50 lakhs on agricultural income, sustaining a disallowance of Rs. 1,25,000. The interest income addition was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee might have had legitimate cash in hand from sources other than agricultural activities. Therefore, the addition was restricted to Rs. 9 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) might not have properly served notice, the assessee did not provide evidence of agricultural produce sales. Therefore, the addition was confirmed to the extent of Rs. 76,528/-, with the remaining amount being deleted.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessees deserve another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes with a direction for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the 5% profit estimation by the Assessing Officer was without any benchmark. Therefore, the profit element was reduced to 3.5% in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal found no reason to agree entirely with the assessee's contention for a lower estimation based on previous years. However, it noted that no comparables were drawn by the lower authorities. The Tribunal reduced the estimated profit to 3.5% but clarified this would not set a precedent.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is to consider the companies' Memorandum of Association, book treatment of land, and business activities to determine if the write-offs constitute business or capital loss.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is to consider the companies' Memorandum of Association, book treatment of land, and business activities to determine if the write-offs constitute business or capital loss.

The Tribunal restored the issue of the correct ALP for international transactions back to the TPO for fresh adjudication, considering only transactions between the assessee and its associated enterprises. Other grounds raised by the assessee were either not pressed or conditionally accepted.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is to consider the companies' Memorandum of Association, book treatment of land, and business activities to determine if the write-offs constitute business or capital loss.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had filed for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the Revenue intended to settle the cases through the aforementioned scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had filed for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the Revenue intended to settle the cases through the aforementioned scheme.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly allowed a portion of the 'other income' as eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii). The Revenue failed to rebut the factual findings of the CIT(A) regarding the nature of the income.

The Tribunal deleted the proportionate interest expenditure disallowance under Section 14A, partly allowed the administrative expenditure disallowance, and restored the issue of set-off of interest income against business loss for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal restored the issue of the correct ALP for international transactions back to the TPO for fresh adjudication, considering only transactions between the assessee and its associated enterprises. Other grounds raised by the assessee were either not pressed or conditionally accepted.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had filed for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the Revenue intended to settle the cases through the aforementioned scheme.

The tribunal noted that the assessees proposed to settle the cases under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed with the liberty to seek revival if the settlement petitions were rejected for technical reasons.

The tribunal noted that the assessees proposed to settle the cases under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed with the liberty to seek revival if the settlement petitions were rejected for technical reasons.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is to consider the companies' Memorandum of Association, book treatment of land, and business activities to determine if the write-offs constitute business or capital loss.

The tribunal noted that the assessees proposed to settle the cases under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed with the liberty to seek revival if the settlement petitions were rejected for technical reasons.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is to consider the companies' Memorandum of Association, book treatment of land, and business activities to determine if the write-offs constitute business or capital loss.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is to consider the companies' Memorandum of Association, book treatment of land, and business activities to determine if the write-offs constitute business or capital loss.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is to consider the companies' Memorandum of Association, book treatment of land, and business activities to determine if the write-offs constitute business or capital loss.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that the appeals should be dismissed as the assessee opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is to consider the companies' Memorandum of Association, book treatment of land, and business activities to determine if the write-offs constitute business or capital loss.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is to consider the companies' Memorandum of Association, book treatment of land, and business activities to determine if the write-offs constitute business or capital loss.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme was not accepted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench's order and previous years' decisions. It noted that the Assessing Officer had not established a nexus between the financial charges and diversion of funds for non-business purposes, and in similar cases, such charges were allowed.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did not cooperate with the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. However, in the interest of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, with directions for verification of any additional evidence.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did not cooperate with the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted all appeals back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, with directions for verification of any additional evidence.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did not cooperate with the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted all appeals back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, with directions for verification of any additional evidence and proper opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did not cooperate with the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted all appeals back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, with directions for verification of any additional evidence and proper opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to address the assessee's contention that the impugned sum was an opening balance from prior years. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, allowing the assessee relief on this aspect. However, the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs for unexplained investment was confirmed due to lack of substantiation.

The Tribunal restored the issue of whether the land was a capital asset back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. The assessees were also directed to appear before the AO with necessary evidence regarding the sale of land in a subsequent AY.

The Tribunal restored the issue of land being a capital asset back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. The assessees were directed to appear before the AO with necessary evidence for further proceedings.

The Tribunal followed judicial consistency and upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance of financial charges. The Assessing Officer had not established that the funds were diverted for non-business purposes.

The Tribunal restored the issue of land being a capital asset back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. The assessees were directed to appear before the AO with necessary evidence for further proceedings.