ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — August 2021

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to withdraw it due to opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival if the scheme benefit is denied.

The tribunal found that the Principal CIT's revision order was vague and lacked specific grounds to justify invoking Section 263. The assessment order was restored as there was no clear error prejudicial to the revenue.

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 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 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 the initiation of reassessment proceedings was invalid because the Revenue failed to provide any material to show that the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed all material facts. The CIT(A)'s decision to annul the assessment was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted various details to both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), but these were not considered. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contributions to PF and ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, they are allowable as deductions. The amendment clarifying disallowance for delayed deposits was considered prospective.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of RCI fee disallowance and Section 14A expenses. It also deleted the disallowance of employee PF/ESI contributions. However, it allowed partial relief for travelling, conveyance, and miscellaneous expenses.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) as it does not apply to estimated income. However, issues regarding the quantification of contractual and sub-contractual receipts, and income from other sources/Form 26AS differences were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the AO. The AO is directed to re-decide the matter after verifying if the amount was offered as turnover in the subsequent year, allowing the assessee to substantiate its claim with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal restored the issue of carryforward losses to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. It also directed the deletion of the cash credit addition, finding that the family members had confirmed the source and purpose of the credits as loan repayments.

The Tribunal held that the issue of income derived from agricultural operations being entitled to Section 10(1) exemption was settled by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case (ITA No. 909/Hyd/2015). The Tribunal noted that this earlier order had held that such income derived from agricultural operations is entitled to exemption. The Tribunal found no distinction in facts or law presented by the Revenue to deviate from this established precedent. Therefore, the Tribunal adopted judicial consistency and confirmed the order of the CIT(A). The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal ordered the assessees' appeals to be withdrawn. The assessees were granted liberty to revive the appeals if their Vivad Se Vishwas applications were rejected on technical grounds.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantees are international transactions under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, especially after the retrospective amendment by the Finance Act, 2012. The Tribunal relied on the Madras High Court decision in PCIT Vs. M/s.Redington (India) Limited.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantees are international transactions under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, especially after the retrospective amendment by the Finance Act, 2012. The Tribunal relied on the Madras High Court decision in PCIT Vs. M/s.Redington (India) Limited.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantees are international transactions under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, especially after the retrospective amendment by the Finance Act, 2012. The Tribunal relied on the Madras High Court decision in PCIT Vs. M/s.Redington (India) Limited.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to benchmark the interest paid on FCDs using SIBOR rates. It relied on the principle of judicial consistency, noting that similar issues in preceding years were decided based on SIBOR rates.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s former order directing verification was flawed due to legislative changes. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's grievance in principle and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the Section 54F deduction claim.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment did not indicate escapement of taxable income. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening, stating that the issue of set-off was not examined in the original assessment. However, it directed a fresh computation of capital gains and losses, and deleted the penalty due to a vague show-cause notice.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. However, it found that disallowing the entire purchase amount was not justified and restricted the disallowance to 8% of the alleged bogus purchases.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. However, it found that disallowing the entire purchase amount was not justified and restricted the disallowance to 8% of the alleged bogus purchases.

The Tribunal held that the requirement of Form-3CL became mandatory only from 01.06.2016, whereas the assessment years in question were prior to this date. Therefore, the denial of weighted deduction was incorrect.

The Tribunal noted the technical deficiencies in the documentation provided by the assessee. However, to allow for a more effective adjudication, the assessee was directed to produce the creditor in person before the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to benchmark the interest paid on FCDs using SIBOR rates. It relied on the principle of judicial consistency, noting that similar issues in preceding years were decided based on SIBOR rates.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. However, it found that disallowing the entire purchase amount was not justified and restricted the disallowance to 8% of the alleged bogus purchases.

The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, and has been held to have retrospective effect, is applicable. The issue of disallowance was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.

The Tribunal held that provision for bad and doubtful debts is subject to MAT adjustment. It also ruled that duty drawback gains and education cess are eligible for deductions. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's eligibility for Section 10AA deduction and disallowed MTM losses, while also directing exclusion of freight and insurance charges from export and total turnover.

On the issue of foreman dividend, the Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal fails. The Tribunal noted that this very issue has been consistently settled against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by the Tribunal itself for Assessment Years 1999-2000 to 2014-15. No distinction in facts or law was pointed out by the assessee. Therefore, judicial consistency was adopted to affirm the addition of Rs. 15,28,60,606. Regarding the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal dismissed all grounds. On bad debts, the Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion deleting the disallowance, but the judgment text provided does not contain the Tribunal's specific finding or reasoning on this point. Similarly, for commission on cancelled chits and royalty payments, the judgment states that the Revenue's grounds are rejected as the Tribunal's co-ordinate bench has settled the issue in the assessee's favour, particularly concerning commercial expediency for expenditure, but the detailed reasoning for these specific disallowances is not fully elaborated in the provided text. The operative direction is that both appeals are dismissed.

On the issue of foreman dividend, the Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal fails. The Tribunal noted that this very issue has been consistently settled against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by the Tribunal itself for Assessment Years 1999-2000 to 2014-15. No distinction in facts or law was pointed out by the assessee. Therefore, judicial consistency was adopted to affirm the addition of Rs. 15,28,60,606. Regarding the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal dismissed all grounds. On bad debts, the Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion deleting the disallowance, but the judgment text provided does not contain the Tribunal's specific finding or reasoning on this point. Similarly, for commission on cancelled chits and royalty payments, the judgment states that the Revenue's grounds are rejected as the Tribunal's co-ordinate bench has settled the issue in the assessee's favour, particularly concerning commercial expediency for expenditure, but the detailed reasoning for these specific disallowances is not fully elaborated in the provided text. The operative direction is that both appeals are dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit. It relied on previous co-ordinate bench orders which accepted the assessee's arguments that the disallowance was not warranted as the recipients had accounted for and paid tax on the interest income.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. It held that since the issue was identical and no distinction was pointed out, the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparables and deleted the adjustment for interest on receivables. The issue of depreciation on foreign exchange loss was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reference to the DVO was unlawful as it was based on a search statement not admissible in law and without examining the assessee's books of account. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was rightly deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note for AY 2012-13 under Section 153C did not adequately state that the seized material belonged to or pertained to the assessee. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal found that Section 153C should have been invoked instead of Section 148/147, as the seized documents related to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note for AY 2012-13 under Section 153C did not adequately state that the seized material belonged to or pertained to the assessee. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal found that Section 153C should have been invoked instead of Section 148/147, as the seized documents related to the assessee.

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. It noted that the Revenue failed to establish any factual distinction from the prior year's case where the Tribunal had already considered similar grounds.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Regarding the addition of customer advances, the Tribunal found that the plea of double addition was raised for the first time and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal, stating that the estimation was justified due to the lack of proper books of accounts and documentary evidence. The assessee's net profit could not be relied upon.

The Tribunal held that provision for bad and doubtful debts is subject to MAT adjustment. It also ruled that duty drawback gains and education cess are eligible for deductions. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's eligibility for Section 10AA deduction and disallowed MTM losses, while also directing exclusion of freight and insurance charges from export and total turnover.

The Tribunal held that the estimation of profit is based on specific facts and not a binding precedent. It also found that statutory deductions under Section 40(b) are not to be disallowed merely because the assessee's books were rejected.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Section 14A disallowance as there was no exempt income. Regarding CSR expenditure, the Tribunal found no substance in the Revenue's argument that it was capital in nature and rejected the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) made a new disallowance not arising from the original assessment order. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure made by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal restored the issue of weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in light of the DSIR approval. Regarding leasehold rights, the Tribunal upheld the denial of depreciation, following precedents that leasehold rights on land do not qualify for depreciation as they create an interest in land, which is not a depreciable asset.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim and evidence of land possession but noted the absence of sale receipts from the agricultural marketing platform. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the addition to Rs. 14.5 Lakhs, deeming it just and proper.

The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance, citing the Supreme Court decision in Palam Gas Service regarding 'payable' expenditures. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that provision for bad and doubtful debts is subject to MAT adjustment. It also ruled that duty drawback gains and education cess are eligible for deductions. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's eligibility for Section 10AA deduction and disallowed MTM losses, while also directing exclusion of freight and insurance charges from export and total turnover.

The Tribunal condoned a one-day delay in filing the appeal. It rejected the ground related to the difference in export sales. The remaining issues regarding commission, donations, and travelling expenses were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.