ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — November 2021

The Tribunal held that while Section 246A does not explicitly list orders under Section 179(1) as appealable, Section 154 allows for amendment of 'any order'. Therefore, the appeal against the Section 154 order was maintainable before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision direction was erroneous as the AO had conducted an inquiry and the PCIT's direction reversed the assessment on merits. Following its own previous orders, the Tribunal concluded that the interest expenditure should be treated as a revenue item.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and treated the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the tribunal to reinstate the appeal if the scheme application was rejected.

The ITAT held that if the employee's PF and ESI contributions are paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance is warranted. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found merit in both parties' arguments, acknowledging that the CIT(A) lacked the power to remand the matter directly to the AO. The Tribunal also noted that the AO was deprived of an opportunity to examine fresh evidence admitted by the CIT(A). Therefore, the entire matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under section 153C were invalid as there was no incriminating material found or seized during the search that implicated the assessee HUF. Confessional statements alone were not sufficient, and the alleged cash transactions pertained to earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that if the employee's contribution to PF is paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance is warranted. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal if their Vivad Se Vishwas application is rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assessee bank is not in default for non-deduction of TDS if it has collected Form 15G/15H, even if they are not perfectly filled, especially considering the nature of its customers (farmers) and their likely exempt income. The bank's efforts to collect forms and the low percentage of missing forms were considered mitigating factors.

The Tribunal held that the assessee bank is not in default for non-deduction of TDS if it has collected Form 15G/15H, even if they are not perfectly filled, especially considering the nature of its customers (farmers) and their likely exempt income. The bank's efforts to collect forms and the low percentage of missing forms were considered mitigating factors.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54F even if the reinvestment is in multiple residential units or flats on different floors. The amendment to Section 54F in 2014 clarified that prior to April 1, 2015, the section did not restrict investment to only one residential house.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable. This was based on the legislative amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, and the CBDT's clarification that these amendments apply prospectively from April 1, 2021.

The Tribunal found that the additional evidence suggested the property belonged to the HUF. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their claim.

The Tribunal held that the assessee bank had complied with the provisions of Section 197A by collecting the forms, especially considering its customer base of small farmers and the basic exemption limits. Therefore, the bank could not be treated as an assessee in default.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal to be withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek reinstatement if the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the pandemic. It then dismissed the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn because the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the tax status of payees for interest disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). For labour and other expenses, the Tribunal reduced the estimated disallowance to 8% of the disputed amounts.

The Tribunal held that if the employee's contribution to PF is paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance is warranted. Following a coordinate bench decision, the disallowance was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee bank had complied with the provisions of Section 197A by collecting the forms, especially considering its customer base of small farmers and the basic exemption limits. The bank was not considered to be in default.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in invoking Section 154 jurisdiction to recompute the interest. The Tribunal found that the claim to treat seized cash as self-assessment tax was not a mistake apparent from the record, and the invocation of Section 154 was not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the sale agreement and advance payments satisfied the conditions of Section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in making the addition. The assessee had sufficiently proved his business activity and the corresponding opening and closing cash balances, which were not rejected.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the pandemic. It then dismissed the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn because the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable. This was due to legislative amendments and CBDT clarifications stating that the provisions regarding disallowance of employee's contribution to ESI/PF apply prospectively from April 1, 2021.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in invoking Section 154 jurisdiction to recompute the interest. The Tribunal found that the claim to treat seized cash as self-assessment tax was not a mistake apparent from the record, and the invocation of Section 154 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in invoking Section 154 jurisdiction to recompute the interest. The Tribunal found that the claim to treat seized cash as self-assessment tax was not a mistake apparent from the record, and the invocation of Section 154 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the provision for consultancy charges was not allowable in the impugned AY. However, if the assessee reversed this provision in the subsequent AY and paid taxes thereon, the demand for the impugned AY should be adjusted to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the pandemic. It then dismissed the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn because the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that an associated enterprise cannot be taken as a comparable for determining arm's length price as it lacks the independent nature of an uncontrolled transaction. Therefore, the impugned adjustment was deleted.

The ITAT held that if the employee's PF and ESI contributions are paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance is warranted. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the 'other expenditure' claim. The assessee failed to prove that the amount was assessed as income in preceding years or to provide necessary details for the write-off.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the pandemic. It then dismissed the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn because the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to reopen the assessment. The Tribunal quashed the reopening because the notice was issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and the Assessing Officer did not establish that income escaped assessment due to a failure to fully disclose relevant particulars.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the sale agreement and advance payments satisfied the conditions of Section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's payee, a group concern, likely acted as a name-lender, outsourcing services at a higher cost to the assessee without rendering them directly. Therefore, the impugned payments lacked genuineness.

The Tribunal found it improbable to keep cash withdrawn for over a year but also noted the Revenue's failure to explain the utilization of cash withdrawals from the earlier year. Therefore, the addition was restricted to Rs. 10 lacs.

The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the first appellate authority (CIT(A)) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case on merits.

The ITAT allowed the claim for bonus payable as it was paid before the due date of filing the return. For salary disallowance, the ITAT restricted it to 8% instead of 10%. The addition for unexplained investment in the capital account was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to consider developments in a subsequent assessment year. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with the condition that the assessee must provide all relevant details.

The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed considered Section 50C and concluded it was not applicable. Therefore, the PCIT's revision order treating it as a case of no enquiry was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the incorrect name in the assessment order was a clerical error, which was subsequently rectified by the AO through a corrigendum. Relying on Supreme Court and its own previous orders, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the assessment order and that it was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the source of the impugned cash deposits by providing necessary cash flow statements and other details. Therefore, the assessee's grievance was found to be without merit.

The Tribunal held that fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was amended to include this levy only from that date. Therefore, the levy was without authority of law.

The Tribunal held that the incorrect name in the assessment order was a clerical error, which was subsequently rectified by the AO through a corrigendum. Relying on Supreme Court and its own previous orders, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the assessment order and that it was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction notes recorded by the assessing authority were invalid. The statutory expressions "pertains to" or "relates to" were inserted prospectively, and the satisfactions were recorded before this amendment using the older expression "belongs to".

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction notes recorded by the assessing authority were invalid. The statutory expressions "pertains to" or "relates to" were inserted prospectively, and the satisfactions were recorded before this amendment using the older expression "belongs to".

The ITAT decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal on merits after affording proper hearing.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) granted relief based on additional evidence without obtaining a remand report from the AO. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances were not sustainable. Amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, along with CBDT's clarification, indicated prospective application from 01-04-2021, making the impugned disallowances invalid for the assessment years in question.