ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — March 2022

The Tribunal held that PF & ESI contributions paid before the return filing due date should not be disallowed, referencing a coordinate bench decision. For the tax rate issue, the Tribunal found insufficient information to determine if slab rates or the maximum marginal rate applied and remitted the issue.

The Tribunal held that PF & ESI contributions paid before the return filing due date should not be disallowed, referencing a coordinate bench decision. For the tax rate issue, the Tribunal found insufficient information to determine if slab rates or the maximum marginal rate applied and remitted the issue.

The Tribunal held that recent legislative amendments and CBDT clarifications, applicable prospectively from 01.04.2021, rendered the impugned disallowance unsustainable. The disallowance was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's stated objects, particularly those related to educational and medical activities for the upliftment of mankind without profit, satisfied the definition of 'charitable purposes' under Section 2(15). The genuineness of objects, not necessarily the actual activities at this stage, is the focus for Section 12AA registration.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO, directing the AO to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present its case with documentary evidence on merits. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO with all relevant evidence.

The Tribunal held that there is no pre-condition of filing a return for the admissibility of an appeal. The CIT(A) also failed to provide effective opportunities for hearing. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Joint Development Agreement did not constitute a transfer or part-performance under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, as the assessee did not surrender her rights or title. Consequently, capital gains were not chargeable in the year of the agreement.

The Tribunal held that the Joint Development Agreement did not constitute a transfer or part-performance under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, as the assessee did not surrender her rights or title. Consequently, capital gains were not chargeable in the year of the agreement.

The Tribunal held that the Joint Development Agreement did not constitute a transfer or part-performance under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, as the assessee did not surrender her rights or title. Consequently, capital gains were not chargeable in the year of the agreement.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 69A can only be made for sums pertaining to the relevant previous year, not for amounts credited in earlier assessment years. Therefore, the impugned addition was deleted.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO, directing the AO to provide the assessee an opportunity to present its case on merits with documentary evidence. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO with all relevant evidence.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 275(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The statutory period of six months for passing the penalty order had expired before the Assessing Officer passed the impugned orders.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO, directing the AO to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present its case with documentary evidence on merits. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO with all relevant evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Joint Development Agreement did not constitute a transfer or part-performance under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, as the assessee did not surrender her rights or title. Consequently, capital gains were not chargeable in the year of the agreement.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 275(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The statutory period of six months for passing the penalty order had expired before the Assessing Officer passed the impugned orders.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the Assessing Officer had already examined the issues during the original assessment and there was no fresh tangible material. The reopening was based on a mere change of opinion.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 275(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The statutory period of six months for passing the penalty order had expired before the Assessing Officer passed the impugned orders.

The Tribunal held that there is no pre-condition of filing a return for the admissibility of an appeal. The CIT(A) also failed to provide effective opportunities for hearing. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO who framed the assessment had not recorded his own reasons for believing that income had escaped assessment. This lack of jurisdiction rendered the entire reassessment invalid.

The Tribunal held that the ESI/PF disallowance was not sustainable because the payments were made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1). The recent legislative amendments and CBDT clarification, applicable prospectively from 01-04-2021, supported this view.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 275(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The statutory period of six months for passing the penalty order had expired before the Assessing Officer passed the impugned orders.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable. This was based on legislative amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, and a CBDT clarification that these amendments apply prospectively from 01-04-2021.

The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, affirming the disallowance. The Assessing Officer had exceeded his jurisdiction by partly allowing a claim that was previously disallowed by the Tribunal, and the assessee failed to substantiate its claim in light of the earlier order.

The Tribunal held that there was no cogent explanation for the significant delay between the withdrawal of the section 264 petition and the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee's argument regarding the payment of self-assessment tax did not justify the delay.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) could not create a new disallowance based on corpus funds, as the Assessing Officer had disallowed the entire claim. The tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s directions for re-computation.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable. It noted the legislative amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B via the Finance Act, 2021, and the CBDT's clarification that these amendments apply prospectively from 01-04-2021.