ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — July 2021

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be withdrawn as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme. The Revenue did not object to this decision.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's shareholder funds were significantly higher than the investments, suggesting the investments were made from non-interest-bearing funds. However, some administrative expenses might be attributable. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the negligence of the tax consultants. The appeal was then allowed to be withdrawn by the assessee as they opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's investments were made from its own non-interest-bearing funds, negating the disallowance of interest expenditure. However, other expenses related to investment might be attributable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IA for operating and maintaining water treatment systems but not for supplying and erecting equipment, as it is not considered a developer in that regard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The rehabilitation expenses were found to be similar to those allowed in previous years, and the CSR expenses were considered necessary for the smooth running of the assessee's mining business.

The Tribunal found that the evidence filed by the assessee was additional evidence. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for reconsideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own consistent rulings in the assessee's own cases for similar issues. The deduction under Section 80IB(10) was therefore allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s decision was based on the S.A. Builders case and a similar ITAT ruling. However, it found that the assessee had not adequately established the business nexus or that the loans were entirely from non-interest-bearing funds.

The Tribunal found that the objectives of the trust deed were charitable in nature. As it was the first year of operation, the Tribunal directed the CIT (Exemptions) to grant registration if the objectives were found to be charitable, after giving the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that even if the revised return was invalid due to a belated original filing, the assessee could still bring mistakes to the AO's notice. The AO is bound to consider such information and compute income accordingly, as per CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal found the AO's reasons for treating the share application money as unexplained to be justifiable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide reliable explanations and evidence regarding the source of funds and the high share premium paid.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not heard on merits and the appeal was dismissed ex-parte. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for reconsideration after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the AO proceeded on an incorrect assumption regarding the date of death of the assessee's father and that the assessee could not provide all details. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was not registered under Section 12A of the Act, it was not entitled to claim exemption under Section 11. The Tribunal also noted deficiencies in the FCRA documentation and compliance.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of property had occurred in earlier assessment years when the father was alive, and the execution of sale deeds in the current year was a formality. It further found that the land retained by the brothers was not received by virtue of a gentleman's agreement in the current year, and thus, there was no taxable relinquishment of right by the assessee.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in future proceedings.

The Tribunal agreed to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claim for TDS credit. The AO is directed to grant credit as per Rule 37BA(3), considering the year of revenue receipt or refund, and also to verify TDS credit for contract receipts.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. However, it allowed the assessees to seek revival of the cases if the settlement benefit was denied for technical reasons.

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.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and received the relevant forms. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. However, it allowed the assessees to seek revival of the cases if the settlement benefit was denied for technical reasons.

The Tribunal noted that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had explicitly opined on the applicability of Section 2(14) of the Act, which defines a capital asset, in relation to the assessees' lands. While both parties presented arguments, the core issue of whether the land constituted a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and (b) remained undecided. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore this clinching issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The Assessing Officer is directed to determine the applicability of Section 2(14) based on the municipal limits prescribed by official gazette notifications as they existed on the date of transfer, not thereafter. The assessees are granted liberty to raise all admissible factual and legal submissions. The issue regarding transfer under Section 2(47)(v) was rendered academic and not adjudicated.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and received the relevant forms. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had explicitly opined on the applicability of Section 2(14) of the Act, which defines a capital asset, in relation to the assessees' lands. While both parties presented arguments, the core issue of whether the land constituted a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and (b) remained undecided. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore this clinching issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The Assessing Officer is directed to determine the applicability of Section 2(14) based on the municipal limits prescribed by official gazette notifications as they existed on the date of transfer, not thereafter. The assessees are granted liberty to raise all admissible factual and legal submissions. The issue regarding transfer under Section 2(47)(v) was rendered academic and not adjudicated.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. However, it allowed the assessees to seek revival of the cases if the settlement benefit was denied for technical reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee chose to settle the dispute under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival if the scheme benefit is denied.

The Tribunal noted that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had explicitly opined on the applicability of Section 2(14) of the Act, which defines a capital asset, in relation to the assessees' lands. While both parties presented arguments, the core issue of whether the land constituted a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and (b) remained undecided. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore this clinching issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The Assessing Officer is directed to determine the applicability of Section 2(14) based on the municipal limits prescribed by official gazette notifications as they existed on the date of transfer, not thereafter. The assessees are granted liberty to raise all admissible factual and legal submissions. The issue regarding transfer under Section 2(47)(v) was rendered academic and not adjudicated.

The tribunal held that the consequential assessment proceedings had no basis as the revision order was reversed. Consequently, all disallowances and additions forming the subject matter of the appeal were deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee chose to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival if the settlement benefit is denied.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and received the relevant forms. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had explicitly opined on the applicability of Section 2(14) of the Act, which defines a capital asset, in relation to the assessees' lands. While both parties presented arguments, the core issue of whether the land constituted a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and (b) remained undecided. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore this clinching issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The Assessing Officer is directed to determine the applicability of Section 2(14) based on the municipal limits prescribed by official gazette notifications as they existed on the date of transfer, not thereafter. The assessees are granted liberty to raise all admissible factual and legal submissions. The issue regarding transfer under Section 2(47)(v) was rendered academic and not adjudicated.

The Tribunal noted that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had explicitly opined on the applicability of Section 2(14) of the Act, which defines a capital asset, in relation to the assessees' lands. While both parties presented arguments, the core issue of whether the land constituted a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and (b) remained undecided. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore this clinching issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The Assessing Officer is directed to determine the applicability of Section 2(14) based on the municipal limits prescribed by official gazette notifications as they existed on the date of transfer, not thereafter. The assessees are granted liberty to raise all admissible factual and legal submissions. The issue regarding transfer under Section 2(47)(v) was rendered academic and not adjudicated.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. For the issue of the cogeneration power plant's eligibility for Section 80IA deduction, the Tribunal noted that coordinate benches of the ITAT had consistently ruled in favor of the assessee in its own cases for preceding assessment years (2007-08 to 2013-14). These decisions held that the power plant was a distinct and identifiable undertaking, not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the existing business, and thus eligible for the deduction. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from this judicial consistency. Regarding the valuation of power tariff, the Tribunal, following its own previous order in the assessee's case for AY 2007-08, directed the AO to adopt the tariff rate as finalized by the Appellate Tribunal of APERC, which was Rs. 2.69 per unit, instead of Rs. 3.48 per unit claimed by the assessee. However, it also directed that if the tariff rate is revised by a higher judicial forum, the AO should consider such revision. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the Section 80IA deduction.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. However, it allowed the assessees to seek revival of the cases if the settlement benefit was denied for technical reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee chose to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival if the settlement benefit is denied.

The Tribunal held that the revenue is bound by the principle of consistency and cannot take a different stand on the same issue in subsequent assessment years without any change in facts or law. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

For assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Tribunal quashed the assessments under section 153A as the regular assessments were not pending at the time of search and no incriminating material was found. For assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, the issue of interest income eligibility for 80IA deduction was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that DEPB incentives, being export incentives, should not be considered for comparability analysis under transfer pricing rules, as it would override special provisions. However, it upheld the deletion of the corporate guarantee fee adjustment, following earlier decisions in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow full interest under Section 244A, stating that attributing delay is a debatable issue not suitable for rectification. For the 115JB issue, the Tribunal found inconsistencies in figures and remitted the matter to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on a voluntary statement without corroborative evidence are not sustainable. The commission income and expenditure were re-estimated to provide partial relief.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on a voluntary statement without corroborative evidence are not sustainable. The commission income and expenditure were re-estimated to provide partial relief.

For assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Tribunal quashed the assessments under section 153A as the regular assessments were not pending at the time of search and no incriminating material was found. For assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, the issue of interest income eligibility for 80IA deduction was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the revenue is bound by the principle of consistency and cannot take a different stand on the same issue in subsequent assessment years without any change in facts or law. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow full interest under Section 244A, stating that attributing delay is a debatable issue not suitable for rectification. For the 115JB issue, the Tribunal found inconsistencies in figures and remitted the matter to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow full interest under Section 244A, stating that attributing delay is a debatable issue not suitable for rectification. For the 115JB issue, the Tribunal found inconsistencies in figures and remitted the matter to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication.

For assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Tribunal quashed the assessments under section 153A as the regular assessments were not pending at the time of search and no incriminating material was found. For assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, the issue of interest income eligibility for 80IA deduction was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of rehabilitation expenses, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this point. For other issues, the Tribunal remitted them back to the lower authorities for further adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the special auditor's reports were invalid as they were submitted beyond the prescribed time limit of 180 days from the date of direction. Consequently, all disallowances and additions based on these reports were deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of rehabilitation expenses, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this point. For other issues, the Tribunal remitted them back to the lower authorities for further adjudication.