ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — April 2021

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities failed to provide material evidence to prove that the sister companies conducted significant activities from the premises. Since the sister companies appeared to be paper entities with no substantial operations, the entire rent and maintenance expenses were attributable to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the registration solely based on religious activities and pastor's salary. The matter was remanded for fresh examination in light of judicial precedents.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the Section 40A(3) disallowance, agreeing that it constituted double addition. However, for the Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on a recent Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The appeal was then dismissed as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek revival if the scheme benefit is denied.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E levy under Section 200A was not permissible for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision was introduced later. Therefore, the levy was set aside.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E levy under Section 200A was not permissible for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision was introduced later. Therefore, the levy was set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done due to the low tax effect, which was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50.00 lakhs as per CBDT Circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done on the grounds of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue retains the liberty to seek recall if exceptions apply.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions in the assessee's individual hands because the undisclosed income pertained to the company, M/s. VNR Infrastructure Limited, which was a distinct legal entity and had been assessed separately. The Revenue failed to demonstrate that the income belonged to the individual rather than the company.

The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, stating that keeping them pending would serve no purpose. However, it allowed the assessees to seek revival of their cases if the settlement benefit was denied for technical reasons.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E levy under Section 200A was not permissible for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision was introduced later. Therefore, the levy was set aside.

The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn, following a High Court precedent, and granted the assessee liberty to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme application is not accepted.

The Tribunal decided to treat the appeal as withdrawn, following a High Court precedent. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if their case was not accepted under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, stating that keeping them pending would serve no purpose. However, it allowed the assessees to seek revival of their cases if the settlement benefit was denied for technical reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. However, the assessee can seek revival of the appeal if the scheme benefit is denied.

The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, stating that keeping them pending would serve no purpose. However, it allowed the assessees to seek revival of their cases if the settlement benefit was denied for technical reasons.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not be held wilfully absent due to a single default. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with specific directions for hearing and evidence submission.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be withdrawn, noting that the assessee could approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas application was rejected. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to settle under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee retains the right to revive the appeal if the scheme benefit is denied.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was wrongly made under section 154 proceedings as the issue of deductibility of such payments is debatable. It relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, having a substantial interest in the company, had withdrawn an amount over and above his credit balance, which was to be treated as deemed dividend. However, the calculation of reserves and surplus by the AO was found to be incorrect, leading to a partial allowance of the grounds raised.

The Tribunal upheld the addition in principle due to the assessee's failure to cogently explain the two balance sheets and bank account details. However, it remanded the quantification of the addition back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 92B, which included receivables as an international transaction, had retrospective effect from 01-04-2002 but did not automatically obligate the assessee to report such transactions in the relevant previous year.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the prayer for one more opportunity, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal found that neither party's submissions were entirely acceptable. The assessee failed to explain all expenses, and the Assessing Officer did not consider all facts. Therefore, the disallowance was further restricted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. It was clarified that the assessees could approach the Tribunal to reinstate their appeals if their Vivad Se Viswas applications were rejected.

The Tribunal held that ESOP expenses are revenue expenditure and allowed the deduction. It also ruled that provisions for approved gratuity funds are allowable under Section 40A(7) and not hit by Section 43B. The Tribunal further held that interest expenditure on advances to the employee trust is not disallowable if sufficient interest-free funds are available.

The Tribunal held that the additions based on a 'dumb document' (seized Excel sheet) without corroborative evidence were not sustainable. Admissions made during search without supporting evidence were also discounted.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to allow the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh. The assessee is to appear before the AO with relevant evidence explaining the source of cash deposits.

The Tribunal found that while the assessees had not fully discharged the onus of proving the source of deposits, the additions made by the lower authorities were excessive. Therefore, the additions were restricted to a certain amount in both cases.

The Tribunal found that while the assessees had not fully discharged the onus of proving the source of deposits, the additions made by the lower authorities were excessive. Therefore, the additions were restricted to a certain amount in both cases.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was wrongly made under section 154 proceedings as the issue of deductibility of such payments is debatable. It relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, having a substantial interest in the company, had withdrawn an amount over and above his credit balance, which was to be treated as deemed dividend. However, the calculation of reserves and surplus by the AO was found to be incorrect, leading to a partial allowance of the grounds raised.

The Tribunal held that ESOP expenses are revenue expenditure and allowed the deduction. It also ruled that provisions for approved gratuity funds are allowable under Section 40A(7) and not hit by Section 43B. The Tribunal further held that interest expenditure on advances to the employee trust is not disallowable if sufficient interest-free funds are available.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT lacked the necessary jurisdiction to withdraw the approvals as the relevant notification conferring such authority was issued after the show-cause notice. Furthermore, the withdrawal was made retrospectively without proper justification. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's order was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT lacked the necessary jurisdiction to withdraw the approvals as the relevant notification conferring such authority was issued after the show-cause notice. Furthermore, the withdrawal was made retrospectively without proper justification. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's order was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the additions based on a 'dumb document' (seized Excel sheet) without corroborative evidence were not sustainable. Admissions made during search without supporting evidence were also discounted.

The Tribunal held that the additions based on a 'dumb document' (seized Excel sheet) without corroborative evidence were not sustainable. Admissions made during search without supporting evidence were also discounted.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT lacked the necessary jurisdiction to withdraw the approvals as the relevant notification conferring such authority was issued after the show-cause notice. Furthermore, the withdrawal was made retrospectively without proper justification. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's order was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT lacked the necessary jurisdiction to withdraw the approvals as the relevant notification conferring such authority was issued after the show-cause notice. Furthermore, the withdrawal was made retrospectively without proper justification. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's order was not sustainable.

The assessee, having obtained relief in the consequential proceedings, sought to withdraw its appeal before the ITAT. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The Tribunal, relying on a High Court decision, treated the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if their case was not accepted under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal. It was clarified that if the assessee's case is not accepted under the Vivad Se Viswas scheme, they can seek reinstatement of the appeal.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that proper opportunities were not afforded. While acknowledging the Revenue's position, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the AO for a fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that the assessee had filed the necessary forms under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme and the Revenue had no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that the assessee had filed the necessary forms under the Vivad Se Viswas scheme and the Revenue had no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the tribunal to reinstate the appeal if the Vivad se Vishwas application was rejected.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The issue of excise duty was restored to the AO for reconciliation. The addition on account of fixed assets was also remitted to the AO for verification with documentary evidence. The claim for bad debts was admitted as additional evidence and remitted to the AO for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that advances made to a subsidiary with business expediency establish a nexus between expenditure and business purpose, citing Supreme Court decisions. It further held that when interest-free funds exceed interest-free advances, it cannot be presumed that interest-bearing funds were diverted for non-business purposes.