ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — August 2021

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted all relevant evidence to the authorities below and before the Tribunal. Since the Assessing Officer failed to rebut the evidence provided, the additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2013-14 due to low tax effect. For AY 2014-15, the issue was remitted to the AO for verification of Form 26A and calculation of interest, as the CIT(A) had deleted the demand raised by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest made by the Assessing Officer was justified. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the order of the AO was restored.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C is not applicable to the transfer of a right in land/building, only to land and building itself. It also held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) cannot be imposed if the assessment order is passed under Section 143(3) without recording specific satisfaction for the penalty.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee offered dividend income to tax, the disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted. For the interest payment, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to verify if the recipients offered the income to tax.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C is not applicable to the transfer of a right in land/building, only to land and building itself. It also held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) cannot be imposed if the assessment order is passed under Section 143(3) without recording specific satisfaction for the penalty.

The ITAT held that it would be in the interest of justice to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of the donation, deleted the disallowance on 'scheme paid' expenses, and restricted the disallowance on other expenditures to 5%. The Tribunal found no reason to remand the issue of other expenditures after 15 years.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2013-14 due to low tax effect. For AY 2014-15, the issue was remitted to the AO for verification of Form 26A and calculation of interest, as the CIT(A) had deleted the demand raised by the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is applicable only when there is exempt income. Since the assessee did not earn any exempt income, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that penalty for the unoffered interest income was sustainable. However, for the outstanding statutory liabilities, if they pertained to earlier years, penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO himself accepted that the transfer occurred in AY 2014-15, meaning capital gains should have been assessed in that year, not AY 2016-17. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the CIT(A) and the AO. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to fulfill the conditions laid down under Section 68 of the Act by way of documentary evidence. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Pr. CIT Vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that the initial onus is on the assessee to establish the identity of the creditors, their capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transaction. The AO's detailed enquiry revealed that several investor companies were non-existent or lacked the financial capacity to invest substantial sums at a high premium. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to discharge the onus required under Section 68, and the AO was justified in adding back the amounts to the assessee's income. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest made by the Assessing Officer was justified. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the order of the AO was restored.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It held that the Pr.CIT's revision direction was unsustainable as it was a case of non-collection of rent, not a failure to determine ALV, and that Section 25A of the Act deals with unrealized rent.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest made by the Assessing Officer was justified. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the order of the AO was restored.

The Tribunal held that brought forward business loss can only be set off against business income, not STCG, as the assessee had offered the income under the head STCG. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on merits.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest made by the Assessing Officer was justified. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the order of the AO was restored.

The Tribunal held that the MAT credit should be calculated after considering surcharge and education cess, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the MAT credit accordingly.

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 upheld the validity of Section 158BD proceedings, stating that the assessees failed to prove the mode of acquisition of their 'Inam Lands'. However, the cost of acquisition for these lands was partially allowed at Rs. 10,000 per acre.

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 being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable. It noted that legislative amendments and CBDT clarifications regarding Sections 36(va) and 43B were applicable prospectively from 1.4.2021, and the impugned disallowance pertained to an earlier period.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had availed the benefit under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival of the appeal if the scheme benefit is denied.

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 being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then decide the issue of registration under Section 12AA on merits.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and decide the appeals on merits.

The tribunal upheld the validity of Section 158BD proceedings, stating that the assessees failed to prove the mode of acquisition of their 'Inam Lands'. However, it directed the AO to accept the cost of acquisition at Rs. 10,000 per acre as on 01-04-1981.

The tribunal upheld the validity of Section 158BD proceedings, stating that the assessees failed to prove the mode of acquisition of their 'Inam Lands'. However, it directed the AO to accept the cost of acquisition at Rs. 10,000 per acre as on 01-04-1981.

The tribunal upheld the validity of Section 158BD proceedings, stating that the assessees failed to prove the mode of acquisition of their 'Inam Lands'. However, it directed the AO to accept the cost of acquisition at Rs. 10,000 per acre as on 01-04-1981.

The tribunal upheld the validity of Section 158BD proceedings, stating that the assessees failed to prove the mode of acquisition of their 'Inam Lands'. However, it directed the AO to accept the cost of acquisition at Rs. 10,000 per acre as on 01-04-1981.

The tribunal upheld the validity of Section 158BD proceedings, stating that the assessees failed to prove the mode of acquisition of their 'Inam Lands'. However, it directed the AO to accept the cost of acquisition at Rs. 10,000 per acre as on 01-04-1981.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' action in invoking Section 50C for LTCG addition, finding no merit in the assessee's arguments about a family arrangement or limited rights transfer. However, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the cost of acquisition on an acreage basis, as the lower authorities had incorrectly estimated it on a per-yard basis.

The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the transfer pricing adjustment based only on the assessee's international transactions with associated enterprises, at the rate of 21.62%. The issue regarding MAT credit was rejected as it did not arise from the rectification proceedings.

The tribunal upheld the validity of Section 158BD proceedings, stating that the assessees failed to prove the mode of acquisition of their 'Inam Lands'. However, it directed the AO to accept the cost of acquisition at Rs. 10,000 per acre as on 01-04-1981.

The tribunal upheld the validity of Section 158BD proceedings, stating that the assessees failed to prove the mode of acquisition of their 'Inam Lands'. However, it directed the AO to accept the cost of acquisition at Rs. 10,000 per acre as on 01-04-1981.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of written-off duty drawback, purchase liability, and payments to sub-contractors. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly considered that these amounts were either not claimed as expenditure or related to opening balances where TDS provisions were not applicable for the current year.

The tribunal upheld the validity of Section 158BD proceedings, stating that the assessees failed to prove the mode of acquisition of their 'Inam Lands'. However, it directed the AO to accept the cost of acquisition at Rs. 10,000 per acre as on 01-04-1981.

The Tribunal held that the AO ought to have completed the assessment in accordance with the valuation report after making a reference to the DVO. The assessment order was found to be bad in law due to haste and violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the first appellate authority for deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the disallowance under Section 14A. It followed the Supreme Court decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT.

The tribunal upheld the validity of Section 158BD proceedings, stating that the assessees failed to prove the mode of acquisition of their 'Inam Lands'. However, it directed the AO to accept the cost of acquisition at Rs. 10,000 per acre as on 01-04-1981.

The Tribunal held that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable, considering the legislative amendments and CBDT clarification that they apply prospectively from 1.4.2021. Therefore, the disallowance of the EPF remittance is directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s estimation of 10% profit from the restaurant and bar, as the assessee could not distinguish the facts from a similar case. The assessee did not press the ground regarding the interest addition due to its smallness.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal upheld the validity of Section 158BD proceedings, stating that the assessees failed to prove the mode of acquisition of their 'Inam Lands'. However, it directed the AO to accept the cost of acquisition at Rs. 10,000 per acre as on 01-04-1981.