ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — August 2021

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 restored both appeals back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration. This was due to the need to examine the trust deed clauses and the assessee's charitable activities in light of relevant legal precedents.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matters back to the AO. The AO is directed to decide the cases afresh after examining the documentary evidence to be produced by the assessee and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the cash payments were genuine and accounted for, and the provisions of Section 40A(3) were not intended to penalize bona fide transactions. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matters back to the AO. The AO is directed to decide the cases afresh after examining the documentary evidence to be produced by the assessee and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and received Form-3. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal restored the issue of turnover reconciliation back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. This was based on the agreement of both parties that the matter primarily involved reconciliation rather than substantive adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It noted that the CIT(A) had correctly held the assessment order for AY 2009-10 to be invalid.

The Tribunal restored both issues back to the Assessing Officer. The interest disallowance was to be examined in light of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) and the fact that recipients were assessed. The warranty expenditure was to be examined afresh considering historical trends and scientific estimation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that for the purpose of capital gains tax, registration of property is not a prerequisite as long as possession and substantial consideration have been exchanged. The buyer had also reflected the transaction in their financial records.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival of the cases if the scheme benefit is denied for technical reasons.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It then allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee chose to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal decided to dismiss the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal was with a condition allowing for revival if the settlement benefit is denied.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and received Form-3. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and received Form-3. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C is eligible for adjustment against seized cash as per Section 132B(1)(i). The penalty under Section 271AAB was also deleted due to lack of specific grounds in the Assessing Officer's order.

The Tribunal held that interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C is eligible for adjustment against seized cash as per Section 132B(1)(i). The penalty under Section 271AAB was also deleted due to lack of specific grounds in the Assessing Officer's order.

The Tribunal held that interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C is eligible for adjustment against seized cash as per Section 132B(1)(i). The penalty under Section 271AAB was also deleted due to lack of specific grounds in the Assessing Officer's order.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival of the appeal if the settlement benefit is denied for technical reasons.

The Tribunal held that neither the assessee nor the department had been able to file corresponding comparable cases for the relevant time span or as on 01.04.1981 to definitively establish the correct valuation. The assessee relied on a registered valuer's report, while the lower authorities relied on the Sub-Registrar Office (SRO) rate. The Tribunal noted that both the assessee's claimed rate (Rs. 313.60 per sq. ft.) and the revenue's relied-upon rate (Rs. 34.10 per sq. ft.) were presented. Recognizing the difficulty in establishing the precise market value, the Tribunal resorted to a 'thumb rule'. It directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the average of the assessee's rate and the revenue's rate, which calculated to Rs. 175 per sq. ft. The necessary computation was to be carried out based on this average rate. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this estimation would not be treated as a precedent in any other case. The appeal was partly allowed on this basis.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and received Form-3. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is subject to the assessee's right to seek revival if the scheme benefit is denied.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival if the scheme benefit is denied.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was erroneous. It found that the payments were genuine, evidenced by registered sale deeds, and the assessee had proved business expediency for making cash payments, satisfying the conditions for immunity under Rule 6DD.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(11A). The assessee's primary activity was letting out cold storage on rent, which did not meet the 'integrated' business requirements of handling, storage, and transportation of food grains or the processing, preservation, and packaging of fruits/vegetables as stipulated in the section.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in not treating the project expenditure as a separate addition, as a larger disallowance on the same project was already made. However, the Tribunal restored the addition for unexplained credits, finding that the assessee failed to provide a cogent explanation for entries in an impounded investment statement.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of additions. The Tribunal agreed that the receipt was not income of the assessee due to the transfer of the contract and outstanding balance to another entity, and that the service fee paid was a revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(11A). The assessee's primary activity was letting out cold storage on rent, which did not meet the 'integrated' business requirements of handling, storage, and transportation of food grains or the processing, preservation, and packaging of fruits/vegetables as stipulated in the section.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that no development had occurred as per the agreement during the assessment year. The Tribunal noted that subsequent agreements and substantial stamp duty payments indicated the earlier JDAs were not materialized.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done because the tax effect in the appeal was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that no development had occurred as per the agreement during the assessment year. The Tribunal noted that subsequent agreements and substantial stamp duty payments indicated the earlier JDAs were not materialized.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order, which was contrary to the provisions of the Act and natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was not proper. The note failed to clarify whether the seized incriminating material actually belonged to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(Exemptions) correctly interpreted that registration is not solely based on the object clause, the assessee requested an opportunity to demonstrate the genuineness of its charitable activities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions).

The Tribunal held that the subsidy received by the assessee from the State Government was a revenue receipt and taxable, allowing the Revenue's appeals. The cross-objection regarding Section 14A was allowed, directing deletion of the disallowance as no exempt income was earned.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of additions. The Tribunal agreed that the receipt was not income of the assessee due to the transfer of the contract and outstanding balance to another entity, and that the service fee paid was a revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee chose to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with a rider to revive if the settlement benefit is denied.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and received the relevant form. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in not treating the project expenditure as a separate addition, as a larger disallowance on the same project was already made. However, the Tribunal restored the addition for unexplained credits, finding that the assessee failed to provide a cogent explanation for entries in an impounded investment statement.

The CIT(A) deleted both disallowances, finding the transportation expenses genuine and the related party purchases justified due to different product quality. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in not treating the project expenditure as a separate addition, as a larger disallowance on the same project was already made. However, the Tribunal restored the addition for unexplained credits, finding that the assessee failed to provide a cogent explanation for entries in an impounded investment statement.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in not treating the project expenditure as a separate addition, as a larger disallowance on the same project was already made. However, the Tribunal restored the addition for unexplained credits, finding that the assessee failed to provide a cogent explanation for entries in an impounded investment statement.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantees are international transactions and subject to ALP adjustment. However, the adjustment should be based on the utilized amount of the guarantee, not the full value. For Section 14A, if no exempt income is earned, the disallowance is deleted; otherwise, it is restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal deleted the ALP adjustment for interest on receivables, finding the benchmarking method inappropriate. It also allowed the claim for secondary and higher education cess as an allowable expenditure under Section 37 of the Act.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(11A). The assessee's primary activity was letting out cold storage on rent, which did not meet the 'integrated' business requirements of handling, storage, and transportation of food grains or the processing, preservation, and packaging of fruits/vegetables as stipulated in the section.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantees are international transactions as per the explanation to Section 92B. However, the adjustment for corporate guarantees should be limited to the utilized amount. For Section 14A, disallowances were deleted if no exempt income was earned, or the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication if satisfaction was not recorded.

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

The CIT(A) deleted both disallowances, finding the transportation expenses genuine and the related party purchases justified due to different product quality. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.