ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — January 2022

The Tribunal noted that the assessees did not appear and proceeded ex-parte. The PCIT had revised the assessments, alleging the Assessing Officer failed to make additions under Section 50C for capital gains.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees did not appear, and the revenue argued that the PCIT's revision was justified due to alleged failure to make additions under Section 50C for capital gains. The appeals were proceeded exparte.

The Tribunal held that MAT credit is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA as it arises from statutory provisions, not directly from the eligible business. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow 80IA deduction for the revenue's appeal, following previous orders.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question, if employee's contribution deducted is remitted within the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities is not justified. The amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B are clarificatory and effective from a later date.

The Tribunal held that the unrecovered amounts from chit fund participants, if not repaid, constitute a business loss. Such business loss is allowable as a deduction under Section 28 of the Act.

The Tribunal noted that a related appeal concerning the 12AA registration was remitted back to the CIT(E) for re-examination. Therefore, the present appeal was also remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question, if employee's contribution deducted is remitted within the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities is not justified. The amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B are clarificatory and effective from a later date.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission and remitted the appeal back to the AO. The AO was directed to consider the Section 10AA deduction claim afresh after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned. For the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that MAT credit is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA as it arises from statutory provisions, not directly from the eligible business. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow 80IA deduction for the revenue's appeal, following previous orders.

The Tribunal held that MAT credit is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA as it arises from statutory provisions, not directly from the eligible business. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow 80IA deduction for the revenue's appeal, following previous orders.

The Tribunal held that MAT credit is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA as it arises from statutory provisions, not directly from the eligible business. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow 80IA deduction for the revenue's appeal, following previous orders.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees did not appear, and the revenue argued that the PCIT's revision was justified due to alleged failure to make additions under Section 50C for capital gains. The appeals were proceeded exparte.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that they were not properly heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the pandemic. While acknowledging the revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal remitted both appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits, granting one more opportunity to the assessees.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order without properly considering the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's age and lack of familiarity with e-proceedings. It held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable as there was no evidence of the assessee receiving consideration over and above the actual sale price, and penalty and quantum are parallel proceedings.

The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained cash credits to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, as the assessee may not have been afforded sufficient opportunities. The 10% adhoc disallowance was reduced to 5%.

The tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and sought liberty to raise issues before the Assessing Officer. The Revenue did not oppose this request.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 10(23)(c)(vi) approvals had been restored by a previous order of the Tribunal. Following judicial consistency, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's claim of having documentary evidence now, decided to grant another opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the pandemic. While acknowledging the revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal remitted both appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits, granting one more opportunity to the assessees.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, remitting employee contributions within the due date of filing the income tax return is sufficient for deductibility. Therefore, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessment years can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for the difference in interest income and prior period expenses, the additions made by the AO were set aside.

The Tribunal held that additions in unabated assessment years under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for the disputed additions, the AO's actions were not justified.

The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with adequate opportunities.

The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with adequate opportunities.

The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with adequate opportunities.

The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with adequate opportunities.

The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with adequate opportunities.