ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — March 2022

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 noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously decided the issue of taxability of offshore supplies against the department. The Tribunal found that the draft assessments continued to hold the field as valid, and later notices were also in the nature of drafts. The issue of set off of brought forward losses was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously decided the issue of taxability of offshore supplies against the department. The Tribunal found that the draft assessments continued to hold the field as valid, and later notices were also in the nature of drafts. The issue of set off of brought forward losses was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously decided the issue of taxability of offshore supplies against the department. The Tribunal found that the draft assessments continued to hold the field as valid, and later notices were also in the nature of drafts. The issue of set off of brought forward losses was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on the CBDT Circulars which stipulate a minimum tax effect of Rs. 50.00 lakhs for filing appeals. Since the tax effect in this case was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record reasons to the satisfaction of Section 147, specifically lacking an allegation of the assessee failing to disclose "fully and truly" all material facts. The Tribunal found no sufficient or impeccable reason for reopening the assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to circumstances beyond the Revenue's control. However, it dismissed the appeal on merits due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the MAT deduction claim on merits and remanded the issue for fresh consideration. Regarding the corporate guarantee, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal in principle but remanded the quantification issue to the TPO for fresh computation, considering the netting aspect.

The Tribunal noted that expenses incurred towards earning exempt income are not allowable. However, it also acknowledged potential expenses related to setting up new businesses or statutory requirements. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the revision jurisdiction was validly exercised as the AO's assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. However, the consequential assessment was quashed as it was a nullity due to the absence of a draft assessment order, a mandatory requirement in transfer pricing cases.

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 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 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 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 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 held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the MAT deduction claim on merits and remanded the issue for fresh consideration. Regarding the corporate guarantee, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal in principle but remanded the quantification issue to the TPO for fresh computation, considering the netting aspect.

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 revision jurisdiction was validly exercised as the AO's assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. However, the consequential assessment was quashed as it was a nullity due to the absence of a draft assessment order, a mandatory requirement in transfer pricing cases.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had adequately examined the facts and circumstances regarding the interest expenditure claimed for AY 2016-17. The appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal, restricting the addition for unexplained cash to 50% of the total amount found. The remaining 50% was considered telescoping from past declared incomes.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search operation relating to the Rs. 7,00,000/- loan, the addition could not be made in an unabated assessment. Following the decision in Kabul Chawla, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO is mandatory under Section 50C(2) of the Act, irrespective of whether the assessee raised an objection. The lower authorities erred by not making such a reference.

The Tribunal restored the issue of rental income to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. It also directed the Assessing Officer to decide afresh the disallowance of municipal tax litigation expenses, considering the income was declared under 'other sources'.

The Tribunal held that the legislative amendments and CBDT clarifications regarding ESI/PF disallowances apply prospectively from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the impugned disallowance for AY 2019-20 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the lower appellate order was passed ex-parte during the pandemic without hearing the assessee. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of specific statutory provisions, the order of applying tax credits should be the one most beneficial to the assessee, as indicated by Form ITR-6. The AO's practice in subsequent years, aligning with Form ITR-6, supported this view.

The Tribunal held that the DVO's report was either based on a reference made after the assessment order or was time-barred. It also found that the assessee's explanation for the cash and the surrender of income covered the issue. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not based on sound material.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment was valid as Section 154 is for apparent mistakes and no return was filed after the Section 148 notice. However, the penalty was deleted because the show cause notice did not specify whether the concealment was of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment was valid as Section 154 is for apparent mistakes and no return was filed after the Section 148 notice. However, the penalty was deleted because the show cause notice did not specify whether the concealment was of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The ITAT held that due to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the assessee failed to file objections within the stipulated time. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court directions regarding the extension of limitation periods.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable. This was because the legislative amendments and CBDT clarification regarding Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B were applicable prospectively from April 1, 2021.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not violate principles of natural justice as a remand report was sought. The bad debts were written off from business receivables recognized as income in earlier years, following the Apex Court's decision in TRF.

The Tribunal held that the FSA charges were crystallized as a liability and paid in the financial year 2012-13, making them allowable for AY 2013-14. Regarding other grounds, the Tribunal allowed the assessee an opportunity to have them adjudicated on merits by the CIT(A) due to procedural oversight.

The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer to examine the documentary evidence supporting the tax paid in the USA. The assessee was directed to furnish the evidence and appear before the AO.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce all concerned parties and details of the collections to discharge its onus within three effective opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's revision order, which formed the basis for reopening the assessment, had already been reversed by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the consequential assessment and subsequent proceedings under Section 147/148 were invalid.

The Tribunal found that neither the assessee provided sufficient reasons for not producing the bills, nor did the revenue authorities verify the stock register. Therefore, the addition was restricted to a lumpsum of Rs. 3 lakhs, without setting a precedent.

The Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice to restore the matters to the file of the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the one-day delay and decide the appeals on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice to restore the matters to the file of the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the one-day delay and decide the appeals on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was indeed erroneous because the assessee filed the original return under Section 139(4) and subsequently filed a revised return, which is not permissible as per the Supreme Court's decision in Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha v. CIT. Thus, the first condition for invoking Section 263 was satisfied. However, the Tribunal found that the second condition, i.e., prejudice to the interest of the Revenue, was not established. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT did not specify how prejudice was caused when the Assessing Officer accepted the statutorily approved salary of Rs. 36,00,000. The PCIT equated the error with prejudice, which is contrary to the law laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, where it was clarified that an erroneous order does not automatically imply prejudice to the revenue. Since the twin conditions of Section 263 were not cumulatively satisfied, the Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in setting aside the assessment order. The impugned order of the PCIT was quashed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, restricting the addition on bank deposits and deleting the addition on gifts. The deduction for LIC premium was allowed.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice to restore the matters to the file of the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the one-day delay and decide the appeals on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that technicalities should not override justice, especially when the pandemic significantly hampered the assessee's ability to participate in proceedings. Granting an opportunity to be heard would further the cause of determining the correct tax liability.

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 held that technicalities should not override justice, especially when the pandemic significantly hampered the assessee's ability to participate in proceedings. Granting an opportunity to be heard would further the cause of determining the correct tax liability.