ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — May 2021

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Therefore, the exemption under Section 54F should not be withdrawn, and the capital gains should be treated as long-term capital gains.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 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 Therefore, the exemption under Section 54F should not be withdrawn, and the capital gains should be treated as long-term capital gains.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 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 Therefore, the exemption under Section 54F should not be withdrawn, and the capital gains should be treated as long-term capital gains.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 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.

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.

The Tribunal restored the issues back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear with all relevant details for factual verification within three effective opportunities of hearing.

The Tribunal accepted the additional ground regarding the invalidity of the assessment. It held that an assessment framed without issuing a Section 143(2) notice is invalid, quashing the impugned assessment on this ground alone.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is subject to the condition that the assessee can seek revival if the scheme benefit is denied.

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 Viswas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in treating the unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit. The loan was from family members, and their details were on record.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had already been given an opportunity to present evidence, including a remand report, but failed to do so. Therefore, the Tribunal declined the assessee's request for another chance before the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that since Form-3 was already issued under the Vivad Se Viswas scheme, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The primary reason was that the assessee had not claimed the waived interest as a business expenditure in prior years, thus Section 41(1) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of capital work-in-progress written off was not justified as it represented revenue expenditure incurred for business purposes. Regarding interest on a Family Benefit-cum-Insurance Scheme, the Tribunal found that the interest per annum per employee was below the threshold for TDS deduction, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds, allowing some assessee appeals, dismissing revenue appeals, and partly allowing others for statistical purposes. Key decisions included deleting disallowances related to short deduction of TDS and interest on a Family Benefit-cum-Insurance Scheme where interest per member was below the threshold.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on 'dumb documents' without corroborative evidence. The AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to establish ownership or verify payments, making the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that a co-ordinate bench had previously decided a similar issue in favour of the assessee's group concern, holding that the financial charges were supported by bank certificates. Therefore, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s action.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds, allowing some assessee appeals, dismissing revenue appeals, and partly allowing others. Key decisions included deleting disallowances related to short TDS and interest on a Family Benefit-cum-Insurance Scheme where the interest per member was below the threshold.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds, allowing some assessee appeals, dismissing revenue appeals, and partly allowing others. Key decisions included deleting disallowances related to short TDS and interest on a Family Benefit-cum-Insurance Scheme where the interest per member was below the threshold.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds, allowing some assessee appeals, dismissing revenue appeals, and partly allowing others. Key decisions included deleting disallowances related to short TDS and interest on a Family Benefit-cum-Insurance Scheme where the interest per member was below the threshold.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was done beyond four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, and was based on a change of opinion by the AO.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds, allowing some assessee appeals, dismissing revenue appeals, and partly allowing others. Key decisions included deleting disallowances related to short TDS and interest on a Family Benefit-cum-Insurance Scheme where the interest per member was below the threshold.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds, allowing some assessee appeals, dismissing revenue appeals, and partly allowing others. Key decisions included deleting disallowances related to short TDS and interest on a Family Benefit-cum-Insurance Scheme where the interest per member was below the threshold.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds, allowing some assessee appeals, dismissing revenue appeals, and partly allowing others. Key decisions included deleting disallowances related to short TDS and interest on a Family Benefit-cum-Insurance Scheme where the interest per member was below the threshold.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was done beyond four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, and was based on a change of opinion by the AO.

The Tribunal reduced the estimated profit from the liquor business from 5% to 4.5% and confirmed the unexplained investment addition in the car, directing telescoping of the net income addition. The addition for unexplained opening balance was also confirmed.

The Tribunal decided on various grounds, allowing some assessee appeals, dismissing revenue appeals, and partly allowing others. Key decisions included deleting disallowances related to short TDS and interest on a Family Benefit-cum-Insurance Scheme where the interest per member was below the threshold.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals, noting that they could approach the Tribunal again to reinstate the appeals if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' application was rejected. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal affirmed the lower authorities' action treating the development agreement dated 15.08.2004 as a transfer under Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, as the assessee conceded this point. Regarding the contention that the transaction was an adventure in real estate development, the Tribunal found no merit. It noted that the assessee herself did not undertake development activity, which was borne by the developer. Furthermore, the assessee had accepted the developed area as a capital asset giving rise to long-term capital gains in AY 2008-09 and claimed Section 54 deduction, indicating a divergent stand. The Tribunal dismissed the argument that the land purchase followed by a development agreement could give rise to business income only. The argument regarding erroneous measurements and rates was also dismissed as the grounds were not pressed before the CIT(A) and not pleaded in the instant appeal. For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea against double taxation. It held that the revenue's reliance on CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works was not applicable as the assessee was claiming credit for income already taxed, not raising a new claim. The issue was restored to the AO to ensure that income assessed in the preceding year was not treated as escaped income for AY 2008-09.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' appeals to be withdrawn. The assessees were granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' application was rejected.

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

The Tribunal deleted the arm's length price adjustment, stating that the SBI prime lending rate was not appropriate for international transactions and no comparable was used. It also deleted the disallowance for employee provident fund, noting legislative intent to condone such defaults before April 1, 2021.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. It also clarified that the assessees could approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' application was rejected.

The Tribunal noted that there was no indication of proper service of hearing notices and no adjudication on merits by the CIT(A). Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The learned Counsel for the assessees submitted that they wished to withdraw the appeals as the grounds were frivolous. The Departmental Representative had no objection.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty. The CIT(A) had followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision that a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) must specify the exact ground for initiation.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals to be withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' application was rejected.

The Tribunal found that while the amounts were received through banking channels, the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 regarding the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the creditors. The CIT(A) had ignored these aspects.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' appeals to be withdrawn. The assessees were granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' application was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the ALP adjustment was not sustainable because the benchmark rates used (SBI prime lending and domestic deposit rates) were not appropriate for international transactions. It also noted the lack of comparable uncontrolled transactions for the segment and the period involved.

The learned Counsel for the assessees submitted that they wished to withdraw the appeals as the grounds were frivolous. The Departmental Representative had no objection.

The learned Counsel for the assessees submitted that they wished to withdraw the appeals as the grounds were frivolous. The Departmental Representative had no objection.

The learned Counsel for the assessees submitted that they wished to withdraw the appeals as the grounds were frivolous. The Departmental Representative had no objection.

The learned Counsel for the assessees submitted that they wished to withdraw the appeals as the grounds were frivolous. The Departmental Representative had no objection.

The Tribunal affirmed the lower authorities' action treating the development agreement dated 15.08.2004 as a transfer under Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, as the assessee conceded this point. Regarding the contention that the transaction was an adventure in real estate development, the Tribunal found no merit. It noted that the assessee herself did not undertake development activity, which was borne by the developer. Furthermore, the assessee had accepted the developed area as a capital asset giving rise to long-term capital gains in AY 2008-09 and claimed Section 54 deduction, indicating a divergent stand. The Tribunal dismissed the argument that the land purchase followed by a development agreement could give rise to business income only. The argument regarding erroneous measurements and rates was also dismissed as the grounds were not pressed before the CIT(A) and not pleaded in the instant appeal. For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea against double taxation. It held that the revenue's reliance on CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works was not applicable as the assessee was claiming credit for income already taxed, not raising a new claim. The issue was restored to the AO to ensure that income assessed in the preceding year was not treated as escaped income for AY 2008-09.