ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — June 2021

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 restored both the Section 80-IB deduction disallowance and the MAT provisions issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was due to the lack of proof of proper service of notice for the lower appellate hearing.

The Tribunal confirmed the additions for unsecured loans, difference between purchases and sales, and business expenses. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping of these amounts against the unexplained bank deposits.

The Tribunal found that the cash likely belonged to farmers/growers, as the assessee was a registered commission agent and had provided confirmations. Therefore, a net profit element addition of Rs. 1.25 lacs was deemed appropriate out of the seized amount.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 54, restricting the deduction to properties within India, was applicable from April 1, 2015. For the assessment year 2012-13, the deduction for a property purchased outside India was admissible.

The Tribunal restored the assessee's grievances back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. This was because the tax effect involved in each appeal was less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per the CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It deleted the addition made under Section 50C, finding the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value to be less than 5%. The issue regarding book profit computation was remanded for fresh verification.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances under Section 14A and for interest on capital liabilities. The disallowance for financial restructuring provisions was also upheld as deleted by the CIT(A). The issue of consumer contribution amortization was remanded for verification.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. This was because the tax effect involved in each appeal was less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per the CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal held that only the amount actually received (Rs. 50 lakhs) could be brought to tax as it was non-refundable. The remaining capital gains addition was set aside for fresh adjudication by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that since Form-3 was issued, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty for the assessee to seek revival if the settlement benefit was denied.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue had no locus standi to file the appeal as the CIT(A) had followed the Assessing Officer's own remand report. Therefore, the Revenue was not an agitated party.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the rental income should be treated as income from house property. This was based on the principle that unless the assessee is engaged in systematic and organized activities to exploit the property commercially, it cannot be taxed as business income.

The Tribunal, relying on its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case, allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as the assessee was registered under the AP Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act and provided credit facilities to its members. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for income earned from investments.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the rental income should be treated as income from house property. This was based on the principle that unless the assessee is engaged in systematic and organized activities to exploit the property commercially, it cannot be taxed as business income.

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

The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c), inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015, should be applied prospectively. Following precedents from the Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the late filing fee.

The Tribunal, relying on its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case, allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as the assessee was registered under the AP Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act and provided credit facilities to its members. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for income earned from investments.

The Tribunal, relying on its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case, allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as the assessee was registered under the AP Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act and provided credit facilities to its members. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for income earned from investments.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessees.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals to be withdrawn. It clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if the "Vivad se Vishwas" application was rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. However, the assessee can seek revival of the cases if the settlement benefit is denied for technical reasons.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of Sri Nimmala Srinivas (HUF) (ITA 350/Hyd/2011). The ground regarding agricultural land not being a capital asset was not pressed. The disallowance of Rs. 5 lakhs commission expenditure was upheld as the assessee failed to clarify the payment details. However, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim for FMV of Rs. 70,000 per acre as on 01.04.1981, noting that this claim was accepted for a co-owner (Sri Nimmala Anjaiah) and unrebutted by the Revenue. Directions were issued to the AO to adopt this FMV for consequential computation. The appeal of the Revenue (ITA 475/Hyd/2011) was dismissed for involving a tax effect below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular. The appeal of Sri Nimmala Raghupathi (ITA 1229/Hyd/2013) was allowed, reversing the CIT's order under Section 263, as the CIT failed to demonstrate that the assessment was both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest, citing Malabar Industrial Co. The Revenue's appeal in ITA 933/Hyd/2015 was dismissed, holding that once LTCG was assessed in the HUF's hands, assessing the same income in the individual's hands would lead to double taxation. The appeal of Smt. Nimmala Suchitra (ITA 1038/Hyd/2016) was dismissed, holding her liable for the Rs. 20 lakhs received in her individual capacity, citing ITO vs. C.S. Atchaiah, as the Assessing Officer must tax the right person. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard regarding its liability as an agent. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of Sri Nimmala Srinivas (HUF) (ITA 350/Hyd/2011). The ground regarding agricultural land not being a capital asset was not pressed. The disallowance of Rs. 5 lakhs commission expenditure was upheld as the assessee failed to clarify the payment details. However, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim for FMV of Rs. 70,000 per acre as on 01.04.1981, noting that this claim was accepted for a co-owner (Sri Nimmala Anjaiah) and unrebutted by the Revenue. Directions were issued to the AO to adopt this FMV for consequential computation. The appeal of the Revenue (ITA 475/Hyd/2011) was dismissed for involving a tax effect below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular. The appeal of Sri Nimmala Raghupathi (ITA 1229/Hyd/2013) was allowed, reversing the CIT's order under Section 263, as the CIT failed to demonstrate that the assessment was both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest, citing Malabar Industrial Co. The Revenue's appeal in ITA 933/Hyd/2015 was dismissed, holding that once LTCG was assessed in the HUF's hands, assessing the same income in the individual's hands would lead to double taxation. The appeal of Smt. Nimmala Suchitra (ITA 1038/Hyd/2016) was dismissed, holding her liable for the Rs. 20 lakhs received in her individual capacity, citing ITO vs. C.S. Atchaiah, as the Assessing Officer must tax the right person. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. However, the assessee can seek revival of the cases if the settlement benefit is denied for technical reasons.