ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — February 2022

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs INDU PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 187/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's projects constituted works contracts, not infrastructure development eligible for Section 80-IA deduction. The claim made in Section 153A returns, rather than original returns, was also a point of contention.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs INDU PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 186/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's projects constituted works contracts, not infrastructure development eligible for Section 80-IA deduction. The claim made in Section 153A returns, rather than original returns, was also a point of contention.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs INDU PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 189/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's projects constituted works contracts, not infrastructure development eligible for Section 80-IA deduction. The claim made in Section 153A returns, rather than original returns, was also a point of contention.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs INDU PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 188/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's projects constituted works contracts, not infrastructure development eligible for Section 80-IA deduction. The claim made in Section 153A returns, rather than original returns, was also a point of contention.

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1635/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after awaiting the final outcome of the sales tax litigation. The assessee is responsible for informing the AO about the finality of the proceedings.

N. RAM MOHAN, KURNOOL,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-2, NANDYAL, NANDYAL

ITA 1133/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Feb 2022AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal found that the matter required reconsideration by the Assessing Officer. It directed the AO to re-examine the issue de novo, providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

UNITED STATES PHARMACOPEIA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 469/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Feb 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, it was sufficient that the employee's contribution was remitted within the due date of filing the return. Therefore, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities deserved to be deleted.

SANDADI MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1614/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and materials, was of the opinion that the matter required reconsideration by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

BHUVANESH REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1372/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed25 Feb 2022AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the case on merits instead of dismissing it ex-parte. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

SMART CARE FACILITIES,SECUNDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICERS -WARD -11(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 357/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question, if employee contributions were remitted within the due date of filing the income tax return, the disallowance was not justified. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, effective from April 1, 2021, was noted as clarificatory.

SMART CARE FACILITIES,SECUNDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICERS,WARD -11(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 358/HYD/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that for the assessment years in question, it is sufficient if the employee's contribution deducted is remitted within the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities is to be deleted.

NAMAN TRADING COMPANY,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 18/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable in light of the legislative amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, and the CBDT's clarification that these amendments apply prospectively from 01.04.2021.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs T.V. JANARDHANA RAO, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1478/HYD/2016[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the JDA did not amount to a 'transfer' under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Tribunal noted that the agreement granted only a 'license' to the developer for ingress and egress for the purpose of developing the scheme, which is distinct from handing over possession. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar, the Tribunal emphasized a stricter interpretation of 'transfer'. Furthermore, the Revenue failed to provide material showing the license fell under other clauses of Section 2(47). The Tribunal also noted the developer had not obtained building sanction, and the license was not acted upon by the developer to perform its obligations, as per the decision in Seshasayee Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT. Consequently, the addition on account of long-term capital gains was deleted. The issue regarding Section 54F deduction became academic in light of the main issue being decided in favor of the assessee. The CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee is eligible for Section 54F deduction, subject to other conditions, was noted.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, CHITTOOR vs FARZANA PATTAN, CHITTOOR

ITA 2062/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had provided evidence, the cash payments made it difficult to rule out inflated expenses. Therefore, a lumpsum disallowance of Rs. 15 lakhs was deemed appropriate out of the total claim.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs TUMMALA CHITTAIAH, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1477/HYD/2016[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the JDA did not amount to a 'transfer' under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Tribunal noted that the agreement granted only a 'license' to the developer for ingress and egress for the purpose of developing the scheme, which is distinct from handing over possession. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar, the Tribunal emphasized a stricter interpretation of 'transfer'. Furthermore, the Revenue failed to provide material showing the license fell under other clauses of Section 2(47). The Tribunal also noted the developer had not obtained building sanction, and the license was not acted upon by the developer to perform its obligations, as per the decision in Seshasayee Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT. Consequently, the addition on account of long-term capital gains was deleted. The issue regarding Section 54F deduction became academic in light of the main issue being decided in favor of the assessee. The CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee is eligible for Section 54F deduction, subject to other conditions, was noted.

WELD FUSE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE 17(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 12/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

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

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs LABZONE ELECTRONICS CITY PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S ALEXANDRIA LABSPACE ELECTRONICS CITY PRIVATE LIMITED), HYDERABAD

ITA 1489/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition under Section 94A(4) because Cyprus was later de-notified retrospectively. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue of 'sham transaction' raised by the AO, which needed to be examined.

PRASAD FILM LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1133/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2022AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction before disallowing expenses under Section 14A and that amended Rule 8D has prospective operation. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), TIRUPATI vs THE TIRUPATI CO-OPERATIVE BANK, TIRUPATI

ITA 2032/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

THUNUGUNTLA JAGANMOHAN RAO, GUNTUR,GUNTUR vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 513/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in invoking Section 263 powers to direct the AO to re-examine the issue of unexplained jewellery. The Tribunal also partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the addition, directing a credit of Rs. 24 lakhs.

OWENS CORNING INDUSTRIES (INDIA) P. LTD. MAHABUBNAGAR (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SAINT GOBAIN VETROTEX INDIA LTD),MAHABUBNAGAR DIST vs DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 256/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2022AY 2004-05Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on fabrication charges for replacing bushings was capital in nature, not revenue expenditure for repairs. Therefore, it should be capitalized and depreciation allowed, reversing the CIT(A)'s order on this specific point.

J B EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 990/HYD/2015[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C) as its prior approval was withdrawn based on adverse findings. The subsequent application for registration did not create a right to claim exemption, especially when previous approvals were cancelled.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs GKC PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1032/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the non-obstante clause in Section 153A makes Section 139 inapplicable, allowing for new claims in Section 153A returns. However, the entitlement to the deduction was not examined on merits by the lower authorities.

NANDAMURI RAMAKRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 899/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2022AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that since a major portion of the building was demolished, the entire cost of construction should be considered for LTCG. Therefore, the Pr. CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263.

CAPS GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLR-16(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 451/HYD/2021[2019-2020]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2022AY 2019-2020Allowed

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2019-20, it is sufficient if the employee's contribution is remitted within the due date of filing the return of income. The disallowance made by the revenue authorities was directed to be deleted.

PURPLE TALK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 450/HYD/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, if the employee's contribution was remitted within the due date of filing the return, the disallowance was not justified. The amendments clarifying the position were effective from a later date.

THUNUGUNTLA JAGAN MOHAN RAO, HYD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 98/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in invoking Section 263 powers to direct the AO to re-examine the issue of unexplained jewellery. The Tribunal also partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the addition, directing a credit of Rs. 24 lakhs.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs KRIDHYA INFRA LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 488/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s findings required revisiting and examination with the evidence gathered by the AO. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs GKC PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1030/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2022AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal held that the non-obstante clause in Section 153A makes Section 139 inapplicable, allowing for new claims in Section 153A returns. However, the entitlement to the deduction was not examined on merits by the lower authorities.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs GKC PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1031/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that the non-obstante clause in Section 153A makes Section 139 inapplicable, allowing for new claims in Section 153A returns. However, the entitlement to the deduction was not examined on merits by the lower authorities.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs GKC PROJECTS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1029/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2022AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal held that the non-obstante clause in Section 153A makes Section 139 inapplicable, allowing for new claims in Section 153A returns. However, the entitlement to the deduction was not examined on merits by the lower authorities.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE vs RAMU YELCHURI, NELLORE

ITA 1493/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly directed the AO to compute the demand after considering the re-assessments of the sellers to avoid double demand. The Revenue's argument regarding the applicability of a specific proviso was found to be irrelevant to the CIT(A)'s order.

ICONCEPT SOFTWARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TDS,CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 481/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's written submissions or the rectification order passed by the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

JOGINPALLY B R EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 988/HYD/2015[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C) as its prior approval was withdrawn based on adverse findings. The subsequent application for registration did not create a right to claim exemption, especially when previous approvals were cancelled.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD vs RAYALASEEMA STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 499/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that neither the CIT(A) nor the AO had adequately examined the issue of burning loss by comparing it with industry benchmarks or the assessee's production register. Similarly, the grounds related to unexplained cash credits and incentives to sister concerns required critical examination. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

MOHAMMED HASSAN,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1571/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a valid and reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal, as there was no contrary evidence to prove the signature on the postal acknowledgment belonged to the assessee or their family members. The Tribunal emphasized substantial justice over technicalities.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs RAGHU RAMA RENEWABLE ENERGY LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1083/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue of interest expenditure disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification, emphasizing the assessee's onus to provide contemporaneous evidence. The Tribunal also restored the issue of 'exceptional item' disallowance for similar verification.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD vs RAYALASEEMA INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 498/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that neither the CIT(A) nor the AO had adequately examined the issue of burning loss by comparing it with industry benchmarks or the assessee's production register. Similarly, the grounds related to unexplained cash credits and incentives to sister concerns required critical examination. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

DELOITTE TAX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 547/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, if employee's contribution is remitted within the due date of filing the return, the deduction is admissible. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, though clarificatory, is effective from a later date.

VASHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1812/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2022AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) orders were passed without proper adjudication of the facts and legal issues. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

VASHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1813/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) orders were passed without proper adjudication of the facts and legal issues. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs NAVABHARAT ENTERPRISES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1409/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2022AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled all tax arrears under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was rendered infructuous.

S K G REFRACTORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 342/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2022AY 2006-07Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is not empowered to entertain a deduction claim in the absence of a revised return. Since the original return did not claim the relief, there was no apparent error on record to warrant rectification under Section 154.

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICERS,WARD -1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 548/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2022AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the satisfaction that the assessee had failed to disclose 'fully and truly' all material facts necessary for the assessment, which is a prerequisite for reopening beyond four years. The Tribunal also noted that the AO who framed the original assessment did not apply his mind properly before reopening.

NICHINO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 546/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable. This was because legislative amendments and CBDT clarifications regarding the timing of such payments were applicable prospectively from April 1, 2021.

COSYN LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 65/HYD/2019[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal recalled its previous order, acknowledging that the late filing fee was indeed applicable for returns filed after June 1, 2015. It clarified that Section 254(2) proceedings are for correcting errors apparent on record.

COSYN LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 64/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal recalled its previous order, acknowledging that the late filing fee was indeed applicable for returns filed after June 1, 2015. It clarified that Section 254(2) proceedings are for correcting errors apparent on record.

SATYANARAYANA KOTA,KADAPA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KADAPA

ITA 545/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the gift's receipt in the relevant financial year and for the expenditure incurred on repairs and renovation. The Tribunal noted the lack of proof for the contractor's work and the belated filing of returns by both the assessee and the contractor.

CYBER TOWERS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs ADDL. CIT, RANGE-6, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1448/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's fund position and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The assessee was given liberty to raise all pleas and file additional evidence.

CYBER TOWERS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs ADDL. CIT, RANGE-6, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1449/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's fund position and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The assessee was given liberty to raise all pleas and file additional evidence.