ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — November 2021

The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) is mandatory, even if not raised by the assessee. Since no such reference was made by the lower authorities, the issue of long-term capital gain addition was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after referring to the DVO.

The Tribunal affirmed the lower authorities' action of estimating net profit at 5% on liquor sales, finding no merit in the assessee's claim of a 3% margin. The disallowance of Section 80C deduction was also upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide relevant details.

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

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to submit additional evidence and restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The Assessing Officer was directed to conduct the verification within three effective opportunities of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was not sustainable. This was because the department had already taxed the assessee's father on the entire sale consideration, indicating no income had escaped assessment in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal affirmed the lower authorities' action of estimating net profit at 5% on liquor sales, finding no merit in the assessee's claim of a 3% margin. The disallowance of Section 80C deduction was also upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide relevant details.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which partly reversed the AO's assessment by excluding returned cheques and making additions based on peak credit and estimated net profit. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower appellate authority's findings.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to provide all necessary details, the disallowance resulted in an abnormal profit enhancement. Therefore, the disallowance was reduced to a lumpsum amount of Rs. 30 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred by benchmarking the adjustment solely on the assessee's AE's terms, as this arrangement lacked uncontrolled transactions. Consequently, the ALP adjustment was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable. This was based on legislative amendments and CBDT clarifications indicating that the relevant provisions apply prospectively from April 1, 2021.

The Tribunal found that the issue of unexplained cash deposit required fresh consideration by the CIT(A) as the assessee's past savings and reconciliation of sources were not adequately addressed.

The Tribunal held that a trust with both religious and charitable objects is eligible for registration under Section 12AA. Relying on previous judicial precedents, the Tribunal directed the CIT(Exemptions) to proceed with granting the registration.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that a loss arising from a mutuality account, which is not a taxable head of income, cannot be set off against income from other heads under Section 71 of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal found no reason to agree entirely with either party. It decided to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, also directing examination of the denial of set off of losses.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the lower authorities failed to consider the assessee's regular business activity and the peak sum of cash deposits, and therefore restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the impugned capital gains addition as it would have resulted in double taxation. The Revenue's arguments were found to be without merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, considering the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as relief was already granted by the lower appellate authority, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.