ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — May 2021

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 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 is rejected.

The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to PF and ESI are remitted before the due date of filing the return of income, the same are allowable as deductions. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the Supreme Court's directions. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, following a previous similar decision regarding disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESI.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(11A) as sweet corn qualifies as a vegetable. It also found that the enhancement of income by the CIT(A) was not justified as the 'other income' also arose from the principal business activity.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had executed a works contract for the irrigation project, not developed an infrastructure facility as contemplated by Section 80IA(4). Therefore, the deduction was not admissible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(11A) as sweet corn qualifies as a vegetable. It also found that the enhancement of income by the CIT(A) was not justified as the 'other income' also arose from the principal business activity.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had executed a works contract for the irrigation project, not developed an infrastructure facility as contemplated by Section 80IA(4). Therefore, the deduction was not admissible.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities constituted a works contract, not the development of an infrastructure facility eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The payments received and the nature of the agreement supported this conclusion.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(11A) as sweet corn qualifies as a vegetable. It also found that the enhancement of income by the CIT(A) was not justified as the 'other income' also arose from the principal business activity.

The Tribunal admitted additional grounds regarding Section 40A(3) disallowance and remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of payments to individual persons. Other grounds were also remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s 195 to interest on foreign supplier bills had already been decided in favour of the assessee in previous assessment years. The assessee withdrew its appeal on ALP adjustment as it fell within the tolerance margin.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantees constitute international transactions and set a lumpsum commission rate of 0.9%. It also directed the Assessing Officer to verify the carry forward of losses and adjudicate capital gains addition on merits.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in not referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) as mandated by Section 50C(2) of the Act. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the prior period expenditure, which crystallized in the current assessment year and was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, should be allowed as a deduction. The disallowance was considered revenue neutral in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantees constitute international transactions and set a lumpsum commission rate of 0.9%. It also directed the Assessing Officer to verify the carry forward of losses and adjudicate capital gains addition on merits.

The Tribunal held that the twin satisfaction is not mandatory when the Assessing Officer is common for both the searched person and the assessee, following the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A)'s order was reversed.

The Tribunal held that the Apex Court's decision in M/s. Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. settles the law, stating that twin satisfaction is not mandatory when the Assessing Officer is common for both the searched and the third party. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was reversed.

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 is rejected.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea to restore the matter for fresh adjudication. It directed the CIT (Exemptions) to re-examine all issues, allowing the assessee to present necessary evidence.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea to restore the matter for fresh adjudication. It directed the CIT (Exemptions) to reconsider the application, allowing the assessee to present necessary evidence.

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 scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal followed the view that Section 200A, inserted with effect from June 1, 2015, should be treated as prospective. Therefore, the late fee levied under this section was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to support the claim of receiving Rs. 40.00 lakhs for renovation or that the AO did not consider it as part of business turnover. Therefore, the assessee's contentions were not accepted.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is not applicable when there is no exempt income earned or receivable by the assessee. Investments were made for commercial necessity.

The Tribunal held that the twin satisfaction is not mandatory when the Assessing Officer is common for both the searched person and the assessee. The Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Super Malls Pvt. Ltd. was relied upon.

The Tribunal followed the view that Section 200A, inserted with effect from June 1, 2015, should be treated as prospective. Therefore, the late fee levied under this section was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal followed the view that Section 200A, inserted with effect from June 1, 2015, should be treated as prospective. Therefore, the late fee levied under this section was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal followed the view that Section 200A, inserted with effect from June 1, 2015, should be treated as prospective. Therefore, the late fee levied under this section was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal followed the view that Section 200A, inserted with effect from June 1, 2015, should be treated as prospective. Therefore, the late fee levied under this section was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal followed the view that Section 200A, inserted with effect from June 1, 2015, should be treated as prospective. Therefore, the late fee levied under this section was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal followed the view that Section 200A, inserted with effect from June 1, 2015, should be treated as prospective. Therefore, the late fee levied under this section was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the principle that TDS was not deducted. However, it held that the first proviso to Section 201(1) introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, has retrospective effect. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification regarding whether the receipts were assessed in the hands of the recipients.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of depreciation. It noted that the issue of the golf course being ready for use and business commencement had been decided against the assessee in a prior Tribunal order, which was pending before the High Court.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of depreciation. It noted that the issue of the golf course being ready for use and business commencement had been decided against the assessee in a prior Tribunal order, with an appeal pending before the High Court.

The Tribunal upheld the principle that TDS was not deducted. However, it held that the first proviso to Section 201(1) introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, has retrospective effect. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification regarding whether the receipts were assessed in the hands of the recipients.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. It found that the deduction under Section 80IA(4) should be tested in the first year of claim and could not be denied in subsequent years without change in original terms. The Tribunal also noted that coordinate benches had allowed similar claims for the assessee in earlier years.

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 is rejected.

The Tribunal reduced the disallowance of salary costs to 5% and allowed 60% depreciation on UPS, following a High Court precedent. The disallowance of salary costs was not to be taken as a precedent.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the assessee had proven his role as Managing Director of a real estate company. The seized document did not implicate the assessee in his individual capacity for the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of carbon credits sales was not taxable as it was capital in nature, and the reassessment proceedings were bad in law. The disallowance under Section 43B was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the cash was found in the assessee's individual locker, not the company's, and the assessee failed to provide details of parties paying advances to the company. Therefore, the addition in the assessee's individual capacity was justified.

The Tribunal held that the encashment of the bank guarantee was incurred in the normal course of business and was compensatory in nature, not penal. Therefore, it should be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the explanation, as the alleged vendees had disproportionately small landholdings and incomes, and sale deeds were not registered.

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

The Tribunal held that Section 14A applies only to exempt income. Since the assessee had no dividend income in the relevant year, the disallowance made under Section 14A was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. It further remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's compliance with Section 201 of the Act regarding TDS.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) should have admitted the additional evidence in the form of the letter dated 20.1.2012 from APIIC, as the assessee submitted it was obtained after the AO's assessment and was not available earlier. The Tribunal also considered the letter dated 1.4.2009 filed before it, noting its relevancy to support the assessee's challenge to the DVO's valuation, which was based on factors like plot size, location, and approach from the main road, without considering the restrictive industrial use. The Tribunal found that the DVO's report did not take into account the industrial nature of the area developed by APIIC. The CIT(Appeals) had adopted twice the specified value fixed by APIIC for industrial plots, which resulted in a market value of Rs. 8,91,93,400, still less than the declared sale consideration of Rs. 9,06,00,000. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(Appeals)'s conclusion in deleting the impugned addition.