ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal held that if employees' contribution to PF and ESI is paid before the due date of filing the return, no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x). The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the provision for periodic maintenance and depreciation on the right to collect toll, following previous coordinate bench rulings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the provision for periodic maintenance and depreciation on the right to collect toll, following previous coordinate bench rulings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the provision for periodic maintenance and depreciation on the right to collect toll, following previous coordinate bench rulings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the provision for periodic maintenance and depreciation on the right to collect toll, following previous coordinate bench rulings.

The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to PF and ESIC are paid before the due date of filing the income tax return, no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x). Amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the revenue regarding the nature of the assessee's activities and remitted the issue of Section 10(1) exemption to the Assessing Officer for de-novo examination. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was also remitted to the AO to be decided based on the outcome of the Section 10(1) determination.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer may be bound by the Goetze (India) Ltd judgment regarding fresh claims, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have the power to examine such claims. The CIT(A)'s rejection of the claim led to a denial of justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the provision for periodic maintenance and depreciation on the right to collect toll, following previous coordinate bench rulings.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the revenue regarding the nature of the assessee's activities and remitted the issue of Section 10(1) exemption to the Assessing Officer for de-novo examination. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was also remitted to the AO to be decided based on the outcome of the Section 10(1) determination.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the revenue regarding the nature of the assessee's activities and remitted the issue of Section 10(1) exemption to the Assessing Officer for de-novo examination. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was also remitted to the AO to be decided based on the outcome of the Section 10(1) determination.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the revenue regarding the nature of the assessee's activities and remitted the issue of Section 10(1) exemption to the Assessing Officer for de-novo examination. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was also remitted to the AO to be decided based on the outcome of the Section 10(1) determination.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to the lack of proper inquiry by the Assessing Officer regarding the capital gains deductions claimed by the assessee. The PCIT's order to revise the assessment was therefore upheld.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly appreciated the facts and details filed by the assessee. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that income accrues only upon rendering of services, not merely upon receipt of payment. Therefore, tuition fees received for services to be rendered in the subsequent financial year should not be taxed in the current year. The Tribunal also found that the addition related to the contingent liability was based on an assumption and lacked proof of actual interest waiver.

The Tribunal held that income accrues only upon rendering of services, not merely upon receipt of payment. Therefore, tuition fees received for services to be rendered in the subsequent financial year should not be taxed in the current year. The Tribunal also found that the addition related to the contingent liability was based on an assumption and lacked proof of actual interest waiver.

The Tribunal held that income accrues only upon rendering of services, not merely upon receipt of payment. Therefore, tuition fees received for services to be rendered in the subsequent financial year should not be taxed in the current year. The Tribunal also found that the addition related to the contingent liability was based on an assumption and lacked proof of actual interest waiver.

The Tribunal held that income accrues only upon rendering of services, not merely upon receipt of payment. Therefore, tuition fees received for services to be rendered in the subsequent financial year should not be taxed in the current year. The Tribunal also found that the addition related to the contingent liability was based on an assumption and lacked proof of actual interest waiver.

The Tribunal held that income accrues only upon rendering of services, not merely upon receipt of payment. Therefore, tuition fees received for services to be rendered in the subsequent financial year should not be taxed in the current year. The Tribunal also found that the addition related to the contingent liability was based on an assumption and lacked proof of actual interest waiver.

The Tribunal held that following the amendment to Section 199 of the Income Tax Act, TDS credit should be given to the assessee irrespective of the year to which it relates, as long as it is reflected in Form 26AS. The denial of credit was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal found the assessee's alternate contention regarding sufficient own capital and free reserves to be acceptable. However, as documentary evidence was lacking, the issue was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s reasons for rejection were not sufficient to doubt the genuineness of the assessee's objects or activities. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not raised any specific objections to the nature of the activities or their alignment with Section 2(15) of the Act.

The Tribunal held as follows: Regarding Ground 2 (Fee for increase in authorized share capital): The Tribunal found that the increase in authorized capital was to accommodate the issue of OCCRPS, which was a conversion of debt into equity. It held that there was no fresh inflow of capital or increase in capital employed, and thus no benefit of enduring nature was derived. Following the ratio in General Insurance Corporation, the expenditure was held to be revenue expenditure and deductible. The assessee's claim was accepted. Regarding Ground 3 (Corporate Debt Restructuring expenditure): The Tribunal, in its earlier discussion (which is partially omitted in the provided text but implied by the flow), found that the issue of OCCRPS did not result in a fresh inflow of capital or an increase in capital employed, nor did it provide an enduring benefit. Therefore, the expenditure was considered revenue expenditure and deductible. The assessee's claim was accepted. Regarding Ground 4 (Interest disallowance under Section 43B): The Tribunal agreed with the findings of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A). It held that the interest payable to HSBC, Standard Chartered Bank, and Citi Bank attracted Section 43B(e). The AO's reasoning that these banks are scheduled banks as per the RBI Act, 1934, and that the terms of the loan agreements with them were relevant, was upheld. The assessee's ground was dismissed. Regarding Ground 5 (Addition to book profit under Section 115JB): The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Special Bench in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., which held that disallowances computed under Section 14A cannot be added while computing book profit under Section 115JB. The assessee's ground was accepted. Operative directions: The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2018-19, if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are remitted within the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance should be made. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue's representative had no objection to the withdrawal application.

The Tribunal held that employees' contributions to PF and ESI, if paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income, are eligible for deduction. The recent amendments were considered clarificatory and prospective.

The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The AO is directed to examine the period of sale deed execution and the assessee's submissions and documents.

The Tribunal held that roaming charges do not fall under the definition of 'fees for technical services' or 'royalty' under Section 194J, nor do they constitute 'work' under Section 194C. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for TDS.

The Tribunal held that roaming charges do not fall under the definition of 'fees for technical services' or 'royalty' under Section 194J, nor do they constitute 'work' under Section 194C. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for TDS.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that roaming charges do not fall under the definition of 'fees for technical services' or 'royalty' under Section 194J, nor do they constitute 'work' under Section 194C. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for TDS.

The Tribunal held that roaming charges do not fall under the definition of 'fees for technical services' or 'royalty' under Section 194J, nor do they constitute 'work' under Section 194C. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for TDS.

The Tribunal held that roaming charges do not fall under the definition of 'fees for technical services' or 'royalty' under Section 194J, nor do they constitute 'work' under Section 194C. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for TDS.

The Tribunal restored the issue of interest disallowance to the AO for fresh examination. The AO needs to determine if interest-bearing funds were given to partners and decide accordingly, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no incriminating material was found, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal restored the issue of interest disallowance to the AO for fresh examination. The AO needs to determine if interest-bearing funds were given to partners and decide accordingly, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that roaming charges do not fall under the definition of 'fees for technical services' or 'royalty' under Section 194J, nor do they constitute 'work' under Section 194C. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for TDS.

The Tribunal held that roaming charges do not fall under the definition of 'fees for technical services' or 'royalty' under Section 194J, nor do they constitute 'work' under Section 194C. Therefore, there was no obligation to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration. The CIT(Appeals) is directed to examine the assessee's submissions and documents regarding the gifts.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no incriminating material was found, the additions made by the AO were deleted.