ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — March 2022

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeal. It found merit in the Revenue's argument that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the absence of a Section 143(3) assessment and by not adjudicating the issue on merits.

The tribunal corrected a factual error in its previous order. The assessment year was rectified from 2012-13 to 2014-15.

The Tribunal held that there was a mistake apparent on record in the cause title of the order. The PAN was incorrectly mentioned as AGCPR 7636 instead of AGCPR 7636P.

The Tribunal found that neither the assessee nor the department had fully substantiated their claims. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 25 lakhs was deemed just and proper, providing relief to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had only invoked Section 40A(3) and not made any addition for undisclosed income based on the search statement. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of Section 40A(3) disallowance, finding no violation of the provision and that the revenue could not make an addition for undisclosed income when the AO had only invoked Section 40A(3).

The Tribunal held that the assessment reopened under Section 147 was invalid because the AO failed to record proper reasons and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had only invoked Section 40A(3) and not made any addition for undisclosed income based on the search statement. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of Section 40A(3) disallowance, finding no violation of the provision and that the revenue could not make an addition for undisclosed income when the AO had only invoked Section 40A(3).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow credit for Rs. 27,34,929 based on banking channel payments for bills produced by the husband. However, the remaining addition of Rs. 55,66,071 was confirmed, finding the assessee's pleas about the survey and valuation to be belated and inconsistent.

The tribunal held that for the assessment year 2012-13, a co-operative bank was not excluded from the definition of co-operative society for TDS purposes, and thus, interest paid to members was exempt from TDS. However, for interest paid to non-members, the disallowance under Section 40A(i)(a) was upheld due to non-compliance with filing Form 15G.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention regarding the shares being long-term assets and the debatable nature of the issue made the Section 154 rectification unsustainable. The withdrawal of indexation was thus not justified.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary inquiries on apparent discrepancies in the assessee's books, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT's action was deemed justified.

The Tribunal held that Section 72 allows set off of non-speculative business loss against speculative business profit, and Section 73 does not prohibit this. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous.

The Tribunal noted that the disallowance was primarily due to insufficient evidence and not due to the invocation of Section 40(a)(ia). Since the assessee had not been adequately represented before the lower authorities and expressed willingness to provide further evidence, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans. The explanation of staff arranging loans was not convincing given the lack of prior connection and the large sums involved.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to PF & ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), no disallowance is warranted. Following a coordinate bench decision, the addition was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemptions) had not considered a crucial object of the trust related to building schools and colleges. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' reliance on alleged concessions was unclear and that the issue of whether borrowings or advances contained interest stipulations was not adequately examined. It also held that reassessment proceedings were valid if based on tangible material, not just seized material, and quashed reassessments initiated beyond the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal restored the issue of commercial expediency for interest-free advances to sister concerns back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. For disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order as no exempt income was derived by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' reliance on alleged concessions was unclear and that the issue of whether borrowings or advances contained interest stipulations was not adequately examined. It also held that reassessment proceedings were valid if based on tangible material, not just seized material, and quashed reassessments initiated beyond the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the mandatory satisfaction required under Section 153C, which is a pre-condition for invoking the section. The assessment order was therefore invalid.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not fully reconcile the cash deposit with the earlier withdrawals, nor did the Revenue fully rebut the claim of unutilized cash. Therefore, a partial addition was deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal held that a valid notice under section 143(2) is a mandatory pre-requisite for framing a valid assessment. In the absence of such a notice, the assessment proceedings are invalid and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' reliance on alleged concessions was unclear and that the issue of whether borrowings or advances contained interest stipulations was not adequately examined. It also held that reassessment proceedings were valid if based on tangible material, not just seized material, and quashed reassessments initiated beyond the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' reliance on alleged concessions was unclear and that the issue of whether borrowings or advances contained interest stipulations was not adequately examined. It also held that reassessment proceedings were valid if based on tangible material, not just seized material, and quashed reassessments initiated beyond the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' reliance on alleged concessions was unclear and that the issue of whether borrowings or advances contained interest stipulations was not adequately examined. It also held that reassessment proceedings were valid if based on tangible material, not just seized material, and quashed reassessments initiated beyond the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' reliance on alleged concessions was unclear and that the issue of whether borrowings or advances contained interest stipulations was not adequately examined. It also held that reassessment proceedings were valid if based on tangible material, not just seized material, and quashed reassessments initiated beyond the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' reliance on alleged concessions was unclear and that the issue of whether borrowings or advances contained interest stipulations was not adequately examined. It also held that reassessment proceedings were valid if based on tangible material, not just seized material, and quashed reassessments initiated beyond the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' reliance on alleged concessions was unclear and that the issue of whether borrowings or advances contained interest stipulations was not adequately examined. It also held that reassessment proceedings were valid if based on tangible material, not just seized material, and quashed reassessments initiated beyond the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' reliance on alleged concessions was unclear and that the issue of whether borrowings or advances contained interest stipulations was not adequately examined. It also held that reassessment proceedings were valid if based on tangible material, not just seized material, and quashed reassessments initiated beyond the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' reliance on alleged concessions was unclear and that the issue of whether borrowings or advances contained interest stipulations was not adequately examined. It also held that reassessment proceedings were valid if based on tangible material, not just seized material, and quashed reassessments initiated beyond the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee sold her right to receive a flat, the corresponding cost of acquisition should also be allowed as per law. The Assessing Officer was directed to redecide the cost of acquisition issue afresh.

The Tribunal held that a valid Section 143(2) notice is a condition precedent for framing a Section 143(3) assessment, even in search cases. The assessment year in question was the year of search, and the notice was issued beyond the statutory limit.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was issued before the filing of the return of income, making it invalid. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to consider the assessee's withdrawals from all Indian bank accounts for reconciliation. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the satisfaction notes recorded by the Assessing Officer were not in compliance with the requirements of Section 153C at the time. The material found only 'related to' the assessees, not 'belonged' to them as required.

The Tribunal restored the issue of commercial expediency for interest-free advances to sister concerns back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. For disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order as no exempt income was derived by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that mere ignorance of the law does not constitute a reasonable cause for deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271B. The assessee's failure to comply with the mandatory audit requirement was not excused.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contentions. It acknowledged that the assessee claimed the payment to M/s. Euphoria Commerce Pvt. Ltd. as subcontractor expenses and deducted TDS. However, the Tribunal noted that these payments were found to be bogus by the CIT(A). The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had merely passed accommodation entries without proving that the sub-contracts were awarded to the payee. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT, emphasizing that evidence in income tax proceedings must be appreciated in light of human probabilities. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the issue also involved admitted additions, as discussed in the CIT(A)'s order. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the actions of the lower authorities. No specific issue was left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction was not recorded in the manner prescribed by law, as the seized material was only noted as 'relates to' the assessee instead of 'belongs to' the assessee. Following previous judicial precedents on similar facts, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that a valid notice under section 143(2) is a mandatory pre-requisite for framing a valid assessment. In the absence of such a notice, the assessment proceedings are invalid and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' reliance on alleged concessions was unclear and that the issue of whether borrowings or advances contained interest stipulations was not adequately examined. It also held that reassessment proceedings were valid if based on tangible material, not just seized material, and quashed reassessments initiated beyond the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal restored the issue of commercial expediency for interest-free advances to sister concerns back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. For disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order as no exempt income was derived by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the mandatory satisfaction required under Section 153C, which is a pre-condition for invoking the section. The assessment order was therefore invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the satisfaction notes recorded by the Assessing Officer were not in compliance with the requirements of Section 153C at the time. The material found only 'related to' the assessees, not 'belonged' to them as required.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' reliance on alleged concessions was unclear and that the issue of whether borrowings or advances contained interest stipulations was not adequately examined. It also held that reassessment proceedings were valid if based on tangible material, not just seized material, and quashed reassessments initiated beyond the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs as undisclosed income, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of the funds with satisfactory documentary evidence before the authorities. The Tribunal also confirmed the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) based on the evidence found during the search.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs as undisclosed income, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of the funds with satisfactory documentary evidence before the authorities. The Tribunal also confirmed the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) based on the evidence found during the search.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly exercised revision jurisdiction because the lower authorities failed to make a statutory reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2), thereby accepting the registered valuer's report. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessees' arguments and upheld the PCIT's decision.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly exercised revision jurisdiction because the lower authorities failed to make a statutory reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2), thereby accepting the registered valuer's report. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessees' arguments and upheld the PCIT's decision.