ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — May 2021

NARENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 504/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 May 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. It was also clarified that the assessee could seek revival of the case if the settlement benefit was denied for technical reasons.

HARI GOPAL REDDY PINNPU,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), HYDERABAD

ITA 776/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed31 May 2021AY 2013-14Dismissed

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that the assessee could seek revival of the case if settlement benefits were denied for technical reasons.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs NEUEON TOWERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUJANA TOWERS LIMITED ), MEDAK

ITA 1794/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed31 May 2021AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction to 'set aside' issues had been omitted. However, it restored the issue of Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification regarding TDS compliance.

VICTORY TRANSFORMERS AND SWITHGEARS LIMITED, MEDCHAL,R.R.DIST vs DCIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 737/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed31 May 2021AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned. The issues regarding Section 40(a)(ia) and bad debts were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

VASANTHA CORPO RELATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 617/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 May 2021AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the pandemic as a reason beyond the assessee's control. Following a previous decision for AY 2013-14, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 50% of the claimed expenses.

ARVIND KUMAR VANNALA,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2323/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed31 May 2021AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

ASHWIN JOSHI, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 284/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed31 May 2021AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's argument for a higher FMV, noting that the valuer's report did not ascertain relevant sale instances. The CIT(Appeals)'s valuation of Rs.900 was considered reasonable given the facts.

SAMPATH SUDDALA,KARIMNAGAR vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(1), KARIMNAGAR

ITA 434/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement given during survey/search, especially when the voluntariness of the statement is doubtful due to a CBI complaint and impounding of documents. The notebooks were considered 'dumb documents' without sufficient details to corroborate the additions.

VIRCHOW BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD17(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1581/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide the required approval for its in-house R&D facility in Form 3CL. Therefore, the disallowance of the weighted deduction was justified.

ARUN KUMAR ETTA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 2259/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the income at 1.5% of turnover. It found that the CIT(A) had already granted significant relief by reducing the Assessing Officer's estimation from 8% to 1.5%, considering the remand report which suggested a GP between 0.6% to 2.2%.

KOTAGIRI BHOOMA GOUD,KARIMNAGAR vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(1), KARIMANGAR

ITA 433/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement given during survey/search, especially when the voluntariness of the statement is doubtful due to a CBI complaint and impounding of documents. The notebooks were considered 'dumb documents' without sufficient details to corroborate the additions.

THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,MAHBUBNAGAR vs DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION ), HYDERABAD

ITA 1781/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders did not deal with the merits of the issues. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD. vs A.P. DAIRY DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LIMITED., HYDERABAD.

ITA 1113/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to delete the interest income addition, finding no revenue element in the grants received. It also upheld the deletion of the Section 43B disallowance, following previous tribunal orders.

THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,MAHBUBNAGAR vs DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION ), HYDERABAD

ITA 1779/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders did not deal with the merits of the issues. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,MAHBUBNAGAR vs DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION ), HYDERABAD

ITA 1782/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders did not deal with the merits of the issues. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,MAHBUBNAGAR vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1778/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders did not deal with the merits of the issues. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

ACIT, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs V.V. RAJAM, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 582/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of agricultural land and irrigation sources was not supported by documentary evidence. The significant difference between the sale agreement value and the actual sale consideration, coupled with the assessee's admission of investing Rs. 2 crores in cash, indicated concealment.

KHAJARAO CHADARAJUPALLI,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 2257/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the income at 1.5% of turnover. It found that the CIT(A) had already granted significant relief by reducing the Assessing Officer's estimation from 8% to 1.5%, considering the remand report which suggested a GP between 0.6% to 2.2%.

THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED,MAHBUBNAGAR vs DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION ), HYDERABAD

ITA 1780/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders did not deal with the merits of the issues. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

RESOLUTE ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 680/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was due to the ex-parte nature of the lower appellate order and the lack of clarity on whether hearing notices were properly served on the assessee.

DCIT, CENT. CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs PUPPALA RAMESH KUMAR, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 28/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition related to movie investment, finding the AO's basis to be surmises. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition for sundry credits, noting that the AO did not deny the related expenses as business expenses.

DCIT, CENT. CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs PUPPALA RAMESH KUMAR, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 27/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition related to movie investment, finding the AO's basis to be surmises. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition for sundry credits, noting that the AO did not deny the related expenses as business expenses.

RONTALA RAJIREDDY,KARIMNAGAR vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(1), KARIMNAGAR

ITA 432/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement given during survey/search, especially when the voluntariness of the statement is doubtful due to a CBI complaint and impounding of documents. The notebooks were considered 'dumb documents' without sufficient details to corroborate the additions.

SAAHI SYSTEMS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1988/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification of the assessee's details regarding the first year of claiming the deduction. The assessee was directed to appear with relevant details and was granted three opportunities of hearing.

MALISETTY SUDHEER,NELLORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE

ITA 523/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 1.25 crores to the assessee's income. It held that the evidence submitted by the assessee was new evidence not considered by the AO and was filed after the assessment order was passed, without establishing a reasonable cause for the delay.

ARUN KUMAR ETTA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 2258/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the income at 1.5% of turnover. It found that the CIT(A) had already granted significant relief by reducing the Assessing Officer's estimation from 8% to 1.5%, considering the remand report which suggested a GP between 0.6% to 2.2%.

CROWN BEERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,SECUNDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 632/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning for deleting the disallowance was not sustainable as the approval obtained was not for the relevant period and there was no material to show an application for approval for the period in question. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication regarding the interplay of Section 297 of the Companies Act and Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

SRINIVAS MAHESH LAXMAN,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD

ITA 1991/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that salary and allowances received in lieu of services performed outside India are not taxable in India for a non-resident, even if the assessee is a permanent resident of India. The Tribunal relied on previous judicial precedents to allow the appeal.

SRI LAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS,SECUNDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), TDS, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2329/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the applicability of Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act, inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015, to the assessment year 2013-14 was a crucial question. Following decisions from other High Courts, the Tribunal adopted a view favorable to the assessee.

DCIT, CENT. CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs PUPPALA RAMESH KUMAR, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 30/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition related to movie investment, finding the AO's basis to be surmises. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition for sundry credits, noting that the AO did not deny the related expenses as business expenses.

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs CROWN BEERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 589/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning for deleting the disallowance was not sustainable as the approval obtained was not for the relevant period and there was no material to show an application for approval for the period in question. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication regarding the interplay of Section 297 of the Companies Act and Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

RONTALA THIRUMALA,KARIMNAGAR vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(1), KARIMNAGAR

ITA 431/HYD/2020[204-15]Status: Disposed28 May 2021Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement given during survey/search, especially when the voluntariness of the statement is doubtful due to a CBI complaint and impounding of documents. The notebooks were considered 'dumb documents' without sufficient details to corroborate the additions.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1662/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal agreed that the CIT(A) no longer has 'set aside' jurisdiction to remand issues. However, it adopted the same approach on merits and restored the issue of bad debts to the Assessing Officer for adjudication.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs CYIENT LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1588/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that disallowance under Section 14A should only be computed on investments yielding exempt income. This principle has been settled by various High Court decisions.

SAAHI SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 773/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification of the assessee's details regarding the first year of claiming the deduction. The assessee was directed to appear with relevant details and was granted three opportunities of hearing.

ALUGADDALA KISTAIAH PANDU,SECUNNDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

ITA 1778/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the property inherited by the assessee before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was HUF property. Therefore, the capital gain should be assessed in the hands of the HUF, not the individual.

GANAPATHI DYAVATH,NIRMAL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

ITA 423/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's cash in hand and past savings. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2.5 lakhs was deemed just and proper, providing relief to the assessee.

DCIT, CENT. CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs PUPPALA RAMESH KUMAR, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 29/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition related to movie investment, finding the AO's basis to be surmises. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition for sundry credits, noting that the AO did not deny the related expenses as business expenses.

CROWN BEERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,SECUNDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 633/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 May 2021AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning for deleting the disallowance was not sustainable as the approval obtained was not for the relevant period and there was no material to show an application for approval for the period in question. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication regarding the interplay of Section 297 of the Companies Act and Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

JITENDER KUMAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1882/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 May 2021AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide the reasons for reopening the assessment as mandated by law. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

M/S. ARKA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD

ITA 298/HYD/2013[2010-11]Status: Disposed27 May 2021AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of classification of receipts to the AO to avoid double addition, directing that income assessed as 'other sources' should not also be assessed as 'business income'. The issue of unexplained cash credits was also restored to the AO for fresh reconciliation to prevent double addition across group entities.

KOUSHIK ROUTHU,SURYAPET vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURYAPET

ITA 573/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 May 2021AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessees are deemed to have acquired the property on the date of the development agreement, making the holding period more than three years. Therefore, the exemption under Section 54F should not be withdrawn, and the capital gains should be treated as long-term capital gains.

M/S. ARKA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD

ITA 295/HYD/2013[2007-08]Status: Disposed27 May 2021AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of classification of receipts to the AO to avoid double addition, directing that income assessed as 'other sources' should not also be assessed as 'business income'. The issue of unexplained cash credits was also restored to the AO for fresh reconciliation to prevent double addition across group entities.

BALASUBRAMANYAM MALLIAH SALLA, L/R OF SMT RADHA BALASUBRAMANYAM SALLA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 146/HYD/2020[201314]Status: Disposed27 May 2021Allowed

The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed in the name of a deceased person are not maintainable in law. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside.

SUBHASKARA REDDY JAKKIREDDY,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 59/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 May 2021AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was settled under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival if the scheme benefit is denied.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs CYBERCITY BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 421/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed27 May 2021AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had earned exempt income (share of profit from a firm) and also taxable income (interest on partner's capital). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh, considering the assessee's reliance on case law and restricting disallowance to the extent of exempt income received.

BACHUPALLY LAXMI (ALIAS ROUTHU LAXMI),SURYAPET vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURYAPET

ITA 571/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 May 2021AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessees are deemed to have acquired the property on the date of the development agreement, making the holding period more than three years. Therefore, the exemption under Section 54F should not be withdrawn, and the capital gains should be treated as long-term capital gains.

BACHUPALLY LAXMI (ALIAS ROUTHU LAXMI),SURYAPET vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SURYAPET

ITA 572/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 May 2021AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessees are deemed to have acquired the property on the date of the development agreement, making the holding period more than three years. Therefore, the exemption under Section 54F should not be withdrawn, and the capital gains should be treated as long-term capital gains.

THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD

ITA 2189/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 May 2021AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest payments on land compensation deposited with courts are covered by Section 194A, requiring TDS. It also ruled that certain expenditures incurred within coal mines for excavation should be treated as 'plant and machinery' for depreciation purposes. The addition for unsubstantiated expenditure was directed to be deleted, and the Section 234C interest was deemed consequential.

M/S. ARKA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, HYDERABAD

ITA 297/HYD/2013[2009-10]Status: Disposed27 May 2021AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of classification of receipts to the AO to avoid double addition, directing that income assessed as 'other sources' should not also be assessed as 'business income'. The issue of unexplained cash credits was also restored to the AO for fresh reconciliation to prevent double addition across group entities.