ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — June 2022

PREMLATA,HYDERABAD vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

ITA 191/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that once the assessee withdrew the LTCG claim and offered the amount as income, it could not be treated as LTCG again. The income was correctly treated as 'income from other sources' and taxed under Section 115BBE.

MEGHA DESHPANDE,HYDERABAD vs ITO WARD-10(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 90/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19Allowed

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

PRAKASH CHAND JAIN(HUF),HYDERABAD vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

ITA 192/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that once the assessee withdrew the LTCG claim and offered the amount as income, it could not be treated as LTCG again. The income was correctly treated as 'income from other sources' and taxed under Section 115BBE.

MEGHA DESHPANDE,HYDERABAD vs ITO WARD-10(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 91/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

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

FMS DENTAL HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 226/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that not providing the remand report to the assessee violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

SUNITA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

ITA 188/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that once the assessee withdrew the LTCG claim and offered the amount as income, it could not be treated as LTCG again. The income was correctly treated as 'income from other sources' and taxed under Section 115BBE.

UNNAM MALLIKHARJUNA RAO,HYDERABAD vs ITO WARD-9(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 187/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the interest of justice and the assessee's submission of not being given sufficient opportunity, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case.

THE FATEH MAIDAN CLUB(AOP),HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE -5 (1), HYDERABAD

ITA 100/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest earned on fixed deposits with banks is taxable as it is received from third parties and not covered by the principle of mutuality. However, the issue of taxability at maximum marginal rate was restored to the Assessing Officer.

THE FATEH MAIDAN CLUB(AOP),HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE -5 (1), HYDERABAD

ITA 101/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest earned on fixed deposits with banks is taxable as it is received from third parties and not covered by the principle of mutuality. However, the issue of taxability at maximum marginal rate was restored to the Assessing Officer.

ANURAG GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD

ITA 112/HYD/2020[2004-05]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2004-05Partly Allowed

For AY 2004-05, the Tribunal held that the license fee pertained to AY 2003-04, which was not covered by the search assessment, and thus deleted the addition. For AY 2006-07, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not properly verify the loan from the assessee's brother and remanded the matter for denovo verification.

D VISHNU VARDHAN RAO,HYDERABAD vs DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

ITA 650/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no illegality or perversity in sustaining the Rs. 3,00,000 addition due to discrepancies in the loan confirmation. The assessee failed to point out any errors in the CIT(A)'s analysis.

DCIT, CIRCLE -5 (1), HYDERABAD vs THE FATEH MAIDAN CLUB, HYDERABAD

ITA 98/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest earned on fixed deposits with banks is taxable as it is received from third parties and not covered by the principle of mutuality. However, the issue of taxability at maximum marginal rate was restored to the Assessing Officer.

THE FATEH MAIDAN CLUB(AOP),HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE -5 (1), HYDERABAD

ITA 99/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest earned on fixed deposits with banks is taxable as it is received from third parties and not covered by the principle of mutuality. However, the issue of taxability at maximum marginal rate was restored to the Assessing Officer.

ANURAG GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 113/HYD/2020[2006-07]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2006-07Partly Allowed

For AY 2004-05, the Tribunal held that the license fee pertained to AY 2003-04, which was not covered by the search assessment, and thus deleted the addition. For AY 2006-07, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not properly verify the loan from the assessee's brother and remanded the matter for denovo verification.

LAKSHMI SHANKAR GUMUDAVELLI,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 144/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure was incurred for the purpose of earning exempt income, as the investment in the firms did not generate taxable business income or interest income for the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance was justified.

SAJJANRAJ JAIN & WIFE (HUF),HYDERABAD vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

ITA 195/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that once the assessee withdrew the LTCG claim and offered the amount as income, it could not be treated as LTCG again. The income was correctly treated as 'income from other sources' and taxed under Section 115BBE.

LAKSHMI SHANKAR GUMUDAVELLI,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 148/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure was incurred for the purpose of earning exempt income, as the investment in the firms did not generate taxable business income or interest income for the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance was justified.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KURNOOL vs VASAVI BULLION CORPORATION, KURNOOL

ITA 279/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order regarding cash deposits was not properly adjudicated, and the enhancement proceedings were dropped without proper reasoning. Therefore, both issues were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.

ASTER RAIL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1788/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 79 disallows carry forward of losses incurred in years prior to the previous year in which the shareholding change occurred. It does not prevent the carry forward of losses incurred in the current year.

SUNITA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

ITA 189/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that once the assessee withdrew the LTCG claim and offered the amount as income, it could not be treated as LTCG again. The income was correctly treated as 'income from other sources' and taxed under Section 115BBE.

SAJJAN RAJ JAIN (HUF),HYDERABAD vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

ITA 194/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that once the assessee withdrew the LTCG claim and offered the amount as income, it could not be treated as LTCG again. The income was correctly treated as 'income from other sources' and taxed under Section 115BBE.

ANITA JAIN,HYDERABAD vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

ITA 190/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that once the assessee withdrew the LTCG claim and offered the amount as income, it could not be treated as LTCG again. The income was correctly treated as 'income from other sources' and taxed under Section 115BBE.

SHAFIUDDIN MOHAMMED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 142/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the group had already disclosed substantial additional income to cover any discrepancies. Following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case involving the assessee's brother, the additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs PRABHAT AGRI BIOTECH LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 292/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow allocation of common expenses based on the cost of goods sold, emphasizing consistency in the method. It also upheld the deletion of the addition for provision for sales returns, considering the seasonal nature of the business and the practice of re-stocking unsold seeds.

SHAFIUDDIN MOHAMMED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 144/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the group had already disclosed substantial additional income to cover any discrepancies. Following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case involving the assessee's brother, the additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

SHAFIUDDIN MOHAMMED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 145/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the group had already disclosed substantial additional income to cover any discrepancies. Following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case involving the assessee's brother, the additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

SHAFIUDDIN MOHAMMED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 143/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2022AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the group had already disclosed substantial additional income to cover any discrepancies. Following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case involving the assessee's brother, the additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs PRABHAT AGRI BIOTECH LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 294/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow allocation of common expenses based on the cost of goods sold, emphasizing consistency in the method. It also upheld the deletion of the addition for provision for sales returns, considering the seasonal nature of the business and the practice of re-stocking unsold seeds.

AAKASH ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1594/HYD/2018[2007-08]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2022AY 2007-08Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that payments made in FY 2008-09 could not be taxed in AY 2007-08. It also noted the assessee's claim of not receiving notices and the denial of a copy of the remand report.

NARASIMHA REDDY KOTTA,SECUNDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 575/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2022AY 2007-08Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the evidence and submissions of the assessee regarding the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the Assessing Officer's findings and directed further examination.

SHAFIUDDIN MOHAMMED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 146/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2022AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the group had already disclosed substantial additional income to cover any discrepancies. Following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case involving the assessee's brother, the additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs PRABHAT AGRI BIOTECH LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 293/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow allocation of common expenses based on the cost of goods sold, emphasizing consistency in the method. It also upheld the deletion of the addition for provision for sales returns, considering the seasonal nature of the business and the practice of re-stocking unsold seeds.

GATI KINTESTU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (1), HYDERABAD

ITA 127/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) can be made if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return. Amendments by the Finance Act, 2021 were considered prospective.

SASIDHAR SAMANTULA,NELLORE vs ITO WARD-3, NELLORE

ITA 128/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and lack of proper opportunity. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the AO to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case.

HETERO WIND POWER LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 43/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

AGRAWALA SWEETS AND RESTAURANT,HYDERABAD vs NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

ITA 72/HYD/2022[2019-2020]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020Allowed

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are paid on or before 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.

SMT.MAJETY MADHAVI,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1490/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in ITA Nos. 1490/Hyd/2018 and 897/Hyd/2017 due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay, based on differing consultant opinions regarding the appealability of section 263 orders, to be untenable, especially given the assessee's professional background. Regarding ITA No. 1342/Hyd/2018, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals) concerning the unexplained cash. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had changed her stand from accumulated savings to cash withdrawn from the bank on a specific date. It found the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to confirm an addition of Rs. 5 lakhs in the hands of the assessee and Rs. 5 lakhs in the hands of her husband, while granting relief of Rs. 12,64,320/-, to be justified given the lack of cogent evidence and the change in the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(Appeals)'s findings on the cash issue and dismissed the assessee's grounds of appeal.

MADHAVI MAJETY, VIJAYAWADA,VIJAYAWADA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 897/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in ITA Nos. 1490/Hyd/2018 and 897/Hyd/2017 due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay, based on differing consultant opinions regarding the appealability of section 263 orders, to be untenable, especially given the assessee's professional background. Regarding ITA No. 1342/Hyd/2018, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals) concerning the unexplained cash. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had changed her stand from accumulated savings to cash withdrawn from the bank on a specific date. It found the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to confirm an addition of Rs. 5 lakhs in the hands of the assessee and Rs. 5 lakhs in the hands of her husband, while granting relief of Rs. 12,64,320/-, to be justified given the lack of cogent evidence and the change in the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(Appeals)'s findings on the cash issue and dismissed the assessee's grounds of appeal.

MADHAVI MAJETY, VIJAYAWADA,VIJAYAWADA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 898/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in ITA Nos. 1490/Hyd/2018 and 897/Hyd/2017 due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay, based on differing consultant opinions regarding the appealability of section 263 orders, to be untenable, especially given the assessee's professional background. Regarding ITA No. 1342/Hyd/2018, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals) concerning the unexplained cash. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had changed her stand from accumulated savings to cash withdrawn from the bank on a specific date. It found the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to confirm an addition of Rs. 5 lakhs in the hands of the assessee and Rs. 5 lakhs in the hands of her husband, while granting relief of Rs. 12,64,320/-, to be justified given the lack of cogent evidence and the change in the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(Appeals)'s findings on the cash issue and dismissed the assessee's grounds of appeal.

MAJETY MADHAVI,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1342/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in ITA Nos. 1490/Hyd/2018 and 897/Hyd/2017 due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay, based on differing consultant opinions regarding the appealability of section 263 orders, to be untenable, especially given the assessee's professional background. Regarding ITA No. 1342/Hyd/2018, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals) concerning the unexplained cash. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had changed her stand from accumulated savings to cash withdrawn from the bank on a specific date. It found the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to confirm an addition of Rs. 5 lakhs in the hands of the assessee and Rs. 5 lakhs in the hands of her husband, while granting relief of Rs. 12,64,320/-, to be justified given the lack of cogent evidence and the change in the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(Appeals)'s findings on the cash issue and dismissed the assessee's grounds of appeal.

MAJETY MADHAVI, VIJAYAWADA,VIJAYAWADA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 675/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in ITA Nos. 1490/Hyd/2018 and 897/Hyd/2017 due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay, based on differing consultant opinions regarding the appealability of section 263 orders, to be untenable, especially given the assessee's professional background. Regarding ITA No. 1342/Hyd/2018, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals) concerning the unexplained cash. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had changed her stand from accumulated savings to cash withdrawn from the bank on a specific date. It found the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to confirm an addition of Rs. 5 lakhs in the hands of the assessee and Rs. 5 lakhs in the hands of her husband, while granting relief of Rs. 12,64,320/-, to be justified given the lack of cogent evidence and the change in the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(Appeals)'s findings on the cash issue and dismissed the assessee's grounds of appeal.

VIBHA AGROTECH LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 179/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal remanded the issue of weighted deduction to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering previous tribunal orders. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as no exempt income was earned during the year.

SATYAM VENTURE ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs ACIT, HYDERABAD

ITA 362/HYD/2021[2010-2011]Status: Disposed28 Jun 2022AY 2010-2011Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that outstanding receivables need to be benchmarked. Following a previous decision, it directed the TPO to compute interest at 6% on outstanding receivables at the year-end, modifying the DRP's order.

ITO WARD-3, WARANGAL vs PONNALA RAM MOHAN, WARANGAL

ITA 107/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's inability to appear during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

VICTORY ELECTRICAL LIMITED,MEDCHAL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1096/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide necessary details and documents to substantiate its claim for the write-off, despite multiple opportunities. Therefore, the disallowance was upheld.

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MATRIX LABORATORIES LIMITED), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 953/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2022AY 2007-08Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the AO's order, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) despite sufficient opportunities. No contrary material was presented to the Tribunal to overturn the AO's decision.

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA

ITA 66/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously decided similar transfer pricing issues for the assessee. The Tribunal decided to remand certain grounds related to site restoration, depreciation on goodwill, and provision for obsolete spares back to the AO for fresh adjudication, while dismissing one ground as not pressed.

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED, KADAPA,KADAPA vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KADAPA, KADAPA

ITA 616/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously decided similar transfer pricing issues for the assessee. The Tribunal decided to remand certain grounds related to site restoration, depreciation on goodwill, and provision for obsolete spares back to the AO for fresh adjudication, while dismissing one ground as not pressed.

AVIS HOSPITALS INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1390/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the consideration paid in excess of tangible assets was rightly classified as goodwill. Since the transaction was a slump sale and not between related parties, the depreciation on goodwill is allowable as it was acquired and not internally generated.

NEERAJ KUMAR AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD

ITA 704/HYD/2020[2006-07]Status: Disposed27 Jun 2022AY 2006-07Allowed

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to estimate the income at 8% of sales as directed by the Tribunal in a previous order. The AO and CIT(A) incorrectly estimated income based on turnover instead of sales.