ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — June 2021

APPA RAO JALADI,PATANCHERU vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1793/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2021AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

PRINCES DURR SHEHWAR TECHN EDUCATION WAKF,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1283/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2021AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that they were not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration and to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

JB EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

ITA 107/HYD/2020[NA]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2021Dismissed

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the understanding that with approval under Section 10(23C), registration under Section 12AA is not required due to a newly inserted proviso.

ALINAR MEDICAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 514/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2021AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Viswas scheme and the Revenue's concession.

JOGINAPALLY BR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

ITA 108/HYD/2020[NA]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2021Dismissed

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the understanding that with approval under Section 10(23C), registration under Section 12AA is not required due to a newly inserted proviso.

SPACENET ENTERPRISES INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 328/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2021AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the explained reasons. While acknowledging that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits.

JUNATHALA NARAYANA REDDY,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 417/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2021AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals to be withdrawn as the assessee opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this withdrawal.

KISHAN KOTHWAL,SIDDIPET vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIDDIPET

ITA 289/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2021AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the chit fund claim for the Rs. 10,00,000/- deposit. The Tribunal noted that the assessee, as a government employee, was not permitted to engage in such transactions and lacked sufficient documentary evidence.

BELLA DESIGN CONCEPT,RANGA REDDY vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-81), HYDERABAD

ITA 204/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2021AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of the assessee's documents and to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

JUNATHALA NARAYANA REDDY,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 416/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2021AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals to be withdrawn as the assessee opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this withdrawal.

JUNATHALA NARAYANA REDDY,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 418/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2021AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals to be withdrawn as the assessee opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this withdrawal.

CHARAN KUMAR JONNAGADLA (HUF), MADANAPALLE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADANAPALLE

ITA 210/HYD/2020[2006-07]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2021AY 2006-07Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to examine the submitted documents and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments.

JUNATHALA NARAYANA REDDY,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 415/HYD/2020[2007-08]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2021AY 2007-08Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals to be withdrawn as the assessee opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this withdrawal.

DILEEF VARANASI,SECUNDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 179/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2021AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee earned commission income from arranging funds for clients. It found the additions and enhancements made by the lower authorities to be illogical and estimated the income at Rs. 32,00,000/-.

NARAYANSINGH RAJPUROHIT,WARANGAL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HYDERABAD

ITA 23/HYD/2020[2007-08]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2021AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal accepted the cash deposits as business receipts, acknowledging some evidence of tailoring business purchases and the assessee offering business income in subsequent years. The AO was directed to estimate 5% of the cash deposits as business income.

IMRAN BAIG MIRZA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 180/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2021AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to examine the documents submitted by the assessee and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to avoid unnecessary adjournments.

VENKATA SINDHU PUSARLA,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 94/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2021AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte without confirming service of hearing notice and that the assessee could not be termed a wilful defaulter.

SUNIL GABRIEL FONSECA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2115/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2021AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the delay was not intentional and was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, particularly the new e-filing procedure. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

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

ITA 93/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, stating that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the source of the share capital, especially in light of the first proviso to Section 68 introduced by the Finance Act, 2012. Mere filing of documents does not absolve the assessee of this responsibility.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs JANAPRIYA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 2272/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2021AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee was entitled to the Section 80IA deduction and that Section 14A disallowance was not applicable as no exempt income was derived. Judicial consistency was maintained.

SSPDL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 685/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15Allowed

The ITAT found that the securities premium reserve was an opening balance from a previous year and not a fresh receipt in the impugned year. Therefore, the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

AISWARYA ART CREATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1700/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2021AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s notice was not properly served on the assessee. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

KIRAN DWARAKANATH SEKHAR, HYDERABD,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 365/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2021AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that advances given to a shareholder for commercial advantage to the company, on which interest is paid, are not deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e). However, the enhancement made by the CIT(A) was partly sustained as it included an opening balance from a previous year and was not fully justified.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs LEGEND DEVELOPERS & CONSTRUCTIONS, KURNOOL

ITA 752/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the admissions made during survey proceedings lacked evidentiary value as they were made to avoid litigation and were not supported by corroborative evidence found during the survey. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

BALJIT KAUR,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 231/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2021AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not in accordance with law as the AO had not applied his own mind to the information received from the Directorate of Investigation. The Tribunal followed the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in similar cases.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KURNOOL vs LEGEND DEVELOPERS & CONSTRUCTIONS, KURNOOL

ITA 743/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2021AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that admissions made during survey proceedings, without corroborative evidence, do not have evidentiary value. Relying on CBDT circulars and judicial precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs AGNUR NIRMALA, KURNOOL

ITA 748/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that admissions made during survey proceedings, without corroborative evidence, do not have evidentiary value, especially when the assessee clarifies they were made to avoid litigation. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs AGNUR JANAKIRAM, KURNOOL

ITA 747/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the admissions made during survey proceedings lacked evidentiary value as they were made to avoid litigation and were not supported by corroborative evidence found during the survey. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), TIRUPATI vs THE TIRUPATI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, TIRUPATI

ITA 482/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2021AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question, the exemption under Section 194A(3)(v) was applicable to cooperative banks making interest payments to their members. The amendment excluding cooperative banks was prospective, effective from June 1, 2015.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), TIRUPATI vs THE TIRUPATI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, TIRUPATI

ITA 483/HYD/2018[2014-2015]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2021AY 2014-2015Dismissed

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question, the exemption under Section 194A(3)(v) was applicable to cooperative banks making interest payments to their members. The amendment excluding cooperative banks was prospective, effective from June 1, 2015.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs AGNUR JAYARAMUDU (IND), KURNOOL

ITA 749/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the admissions made during survey proceedings lacked evidentiary value as they were not supported by corroborative evidence. The Tribunal relied on CBDT circulars and judicial precedents stating that admissions made to avoid litigation do not form a sole basis for addition.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 2273/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee was entitled to the Section 80IA deduction and that Section 14A disallowance was not applicable as no exempt income was derived. Judicial consistency was maintained.

NARESH KUMAR SEKHER, HYDERABD,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 364/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2021AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that advances given to a shareholder for commercial advantage to the company, on which interest is paid, are not deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e). However, the enhancement made by the CIT(A) was partly sustained as it included an opening balance from a previous year and was not fully justified.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs AGNUR JAYARAMUDU (HUF), KURNOOL

ITA 750/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the admissions made during survey proceedings lacked evidentiary value as they were made to avoid litigation and were not supported by corroborative evidence found during the survey. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

TUMMALA SACHENDRA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRLCE-12(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 414/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2021AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme. The Revenue did not object to this request.

PRASAD MEDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 67/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2021AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issue is settled by the Finance Act, 2021, which applies retrospectively. Following a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of employees' provident fund contribution.

JAYA KEDIA,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 407/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The assessees were granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstatement if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' application was rejected.

ASHA KEDIA,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 406/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The assessees were granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstatement if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' application was rejected.

JB ESTATES,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 137/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2021AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission for an opportunity to be heard, despite the Revenue's arguments. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate.

SV MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHITTOOR vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1758/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2021AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The assessee was directed to appear with complete documents and cooperate in the assessment proceedings.

S.CHINTAKUNTA MUNAIAH RAMESH,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 722/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2021AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding lack of proper opportunity and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the revenue authorities.

BHARATHI MUKTEVI,SECUNDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1373/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2021AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity, noting that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. The matter was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate.

SUNIL KUMAR MUTHYALA,SECUNDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1691/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2021AY 2013-14Dismissed

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

RAVINDER REDDY KATTA,WARANGAL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, WARANGAL

ITA 1244/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2021AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed merely because an addition was made under the deeming provisions of Section 50C. The assessee's conduct did not amount to concealment of taxable income.

SHAIK KHALIL AHMED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2282/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2021AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to the assessee to seek reinstatement if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme was not accepted by the Revenue.

SUNIL KUMAR MUTHYALA,SECUNDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1690/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2021AY 2012-13Dismissed

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

M/S DECCAN STRIPS AND TUBES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S.D.T.TUBES PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1938/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2021AY 2011-12Dismissed

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 their Vivad Se Vishwas application is rejected.

TUMMALA SACHENDRA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-12(1) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1476/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2021AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme. The Revenue did not object to this request.

JSR AND CO. CIVIL CONTRACTORS, KARIMNAGAR,KARIMNAGAR vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR, KARIMNAGAR

ITA 648/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Jun 2021AY 2013-14Dismissed

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.

SVPCL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1873/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 Jun 2021AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and the Assessing Officer had disallowed expenditure due to lack of evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.