ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — September 2021

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and the revenue did not oppose this prayer. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance under Section 14A to the dividend income was correct. However, regarding the deduction under Section 80IA, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for recalculation, considering the Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of penalties. This was because the Assessing Officer's show cause notices failed to specify whether the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance under Section 14A to the dividend income was correct. However, regarding the deduction under Section 80IA, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for recalculation, considering the Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of penalties. This was because the Assessing Officer's show cause notices failed to specify whether the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that registration under Section 80G(5)(vi) is a natural corollary to Section 12AA registration. Therefore, the CIT(E) was directed to grant the impugned registration to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal had become infructuous due to the subsequent assessment order. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the deferred sales tax liability, when taken over, cannot be treated as goodwill. It is a liability and cannot transform into an asset. Therefore, depreciation on such self-created goodwill is not allowable under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that since Form 3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was issued, there was no purpose in keeping the appeals pending. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with the option for revival if settlement benefits were denied for technical reasons.

The Tribunal held that since Form 3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was issued, there was no purpose in keeping the appeals pending. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with the option for revival if settlement benefits were denied for technical reasons.

The Tribunal held that the deferred sales tax liability, when taken over, cannot be treated as goodwill. It is a liability and cannot transform into an asset. Therefore, depreciation on such self-created goodwill is not allowable under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the deferred sales tax liability, when taken over, cannot be treated as goodwill. It is a liability and cannot transform into an asset. Therefore, depreciation on such self-created goodwill is not allowable under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the deferred sales tax liability, when taken over, cannot be treated as goodwill. It is a liability and cannot transform into an asset. Therefore, depreciation on such self-created goodwill is not allowable under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, exempted interest payments made by a co-operative society to its members from TDS. This exemption was applicable for the assessment year in question, as the amendment excluding co-operative banks was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for not reporting the trade receivables as an international transaction. This was due to the retrospective insertion of the Explanation to Section 92B of the Act, which defined such receivables as international transactions.

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowed expenditure to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three effective opportunities to produce relevant details. The ground regarding unexplained credit was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circulars. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the addition of long-term capital gains. The Tribunal found no reason to concur with the assessee's stand that the sale deed was sham. It held that the registered sale deed, dated 20.04.2009, was a valid transfer under Section 2(47)(v) of the Act and superseded all prior oral or unregistered documents. The Tribunal noted that the additional evidence filed by the assessee, including pleadings in civil and criminal courts, had not yet attained finality and could not form the sole basis for assessment. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini, which emphasized the importance of registered documents for transfer, and CIT Vs. K.Y.Pilliah. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had appeared before the registration authority, claimed to have transferred vacant possession, and received the entire sale consideration. Therefore, any prior or subsequent documents, oral or unregistered, were deemed superseded by the registered transfer document. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion and confirmed the impugned long-term capital gain addition.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. This was because the Assessing Officer's penalty show cause notice failed to specify whether the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income.

The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's submission that the assessee had multiple opportunities but failed to appear or provide information. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal perused the assessee's letter and permitted them to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal perused the assessee's letter and permitted them to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the appeal was dismissed without proper consideration. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A) on multiple occasions, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back for a fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the sum mentioned in a cheque which was never encashed cannot be treated as income. The Tribunal also found no violation of Rule 46A.

The Tribunal found that the complete facts were not properly brought out, with potential cross-entries involving the assessee's associated company. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a detailed de novo examination.