ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — July 2022

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD vs SRIDHAR REDDY JAGAN NAGARI SATYA., HYDERABAD

ITA 1347/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not validly served on the assessee as it was served by affixture without proper diligence or witnesses. Consequently, the entire assessment proceedings were quashed.

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 123/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was in the nature of a final assessment order, passed in clear violation of Section 144C of the Act. Therefore, the assessment order was declared null and void and quashed.

SRIDHAR REDDY JAGAN NAGARI SATYA.,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1)., HYDERABAD.

ITA 1248/HYD/2017[A.Y- 2012-13,]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not validly served on the assessee as it was served by affixture without proper diligence or witnesses. Consequently, the entire assessment proceedings were quashed.

NAGA PADMAJA VANGARA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 34/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: Pending29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that transfer is complete upon execution of the Development Agreement, making the capital gains taxable in the year of agreement. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the computation of capital gains as upheld by the CIT(A).

SNR AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICERS,WARD -3(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 409/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The short notice and the hearing date falling during the nationwide lockdown prevented the assessee from responding.

AGARWAL STEEL STRUCTURES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1113/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that once CIRP proceedings commence, the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor is prohibited under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs KSK MAHANANDI POWER COMPANY LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 248/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD) RANGE-1, HYDERABAD vs AGARWAL STEEL STRUCTURE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1063/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that once CIRP proceedings commence, the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor is prohibited under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

AARTHI RATHI,MAHARASHTRA vs INCOME TAX OFFICERS 9INT TAXN ) -2, HYDERABAD

ITA 39/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the identity and creditworthiness of the donor, along with the genuineness of the gift transaction, were established. The share of profit from the partnership firm is also exempt under Section 10(2A).

VASANT CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1505/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the R&D expenditure issue to the AO for fresh verification. For the leasehold rights, the Tribunal followed its own prior decision and allowed depreciation, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.

JALADI APPA RAO,HYDERABAD vs ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

ITA 179/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case. The assessee's failure to appear was attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

NEKKANTI SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 637/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the directors and the company are separate assessees, and losses incurred by directors in their individual capacity cannot be allowed in the company's assessment. The assessment order allowing such a deduction was deemed erroneous.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs NEKKANTI SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 484/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that directors and the company are separate assessees, and losses incurred by directors in their individual capacity cannot be allowed in the company's assessment. The Tribunal found the company's conduct and the nature of the transactions to be improbable.

WALDEN PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 644/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: Heard25 Jul 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the Section 153C proceedings. However, regarding the Section 14A disallowance, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to recent amendments and in the interest of justice.

SHV ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED.,HYDERABAD. vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)., HYDERABAD.

ITA 1316/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Jul 2022AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a multinational company with access to expert advice, failed to establish a sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. The explanation provided was not convincing and lacked bona fides.

WALDEN PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 643/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Heard25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the Section 153C proceedings. However, regarding the Section 14A disallowance, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to recent amendments and in the interest of justice.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs KSK MAHANADI POWER COMPANY LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1686/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that due to the pending CIRP and the moratorium provisions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeals could not be proceeded with at that time. The appeals were dismissed in limine, with leave granted to seek restoration if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

ITA 635/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs KSK WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 902/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that due to the pending CIRP and the moratorium provisions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeals could not be proceeded with at that time. The appeals were dismissed in limine, with leave granted to seek restoration if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.

RAVI KAPOOR,HYDERABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 499/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

SHEETAL KAPOOR,HYDERABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 498/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee does not benefit from delaying litigation. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

DCIT, CIRCLE 1, KHAMMAM vs BABURAO ATLURI, KOTHAGUDEM

ITA 108/HYD/2022[2018-2019]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2018-2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 67 is directory and not mandatory, especially when the delay is minimal and the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) overrides domestic law. Therefore, FTC cannot be denied solely due to a short delay in filing Form 67.

BIOLOGICAL E LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1589/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO's reopening of the assessment was based on a 'change of opinion' as no new material came to light after the original assessment. The AO merely re-examined the existing books of accounts, which is not permissible for reassessment.

GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1997/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, pending proceedings against the corporate debtor cannot be continued. The appeals are dismissed in limine, with leave granted to seek restoration if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD

ITA 1061/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD,SECUNDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 966/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

ANIL BHANSALI,HYDERABAD vs ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -12, HYDERABAD

ITA 320/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Section 49(2AA) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 49(2AB), was applicable as the assessee paid taxes on the perquisite value of shares, not fringe benefits tax by the employer. Therefore, the grant price was correctly considered the cost of acquisition.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDING LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 491/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs DECCAN CHRONICALE HOLDINGS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 490/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 536/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 647/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 435/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, pending proceedings against the corporate debtor cannot be continued. The appeals are dismissed in limine, with leave granted to seek restoration if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.

K S RAO & CO,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICERS,WARD -6(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 381/HYD/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal noted that similar issues had arisen in previous assessment years and were resolved by directing the Assessing Officer to verify the TDS credit based on Form 26AS and evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification.

SHANTA SRIRAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 453/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal remanded the issue of disallowance under Section 14A back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination due to recent amendments. The addition related to house property income was allowed for the Assessing Officer to comply with the CIT(A)'s directions.

BIOLOGICAL E LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1590/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that only expenditure certified by the DSIR in Form 3CL is eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB). The approval of the R&D facility alone is not sufficient; the expenditure must also be approved by the prescribed authority.

NEELAKANTA REDDY MUDDAM,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICERS,WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 70/HYD/2022[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits, as required by Section 250(6) of the IT Act. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

PROSEED INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY GREEN FIRE AGRI COMMODITIES LIMITED ),HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 206/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparables from the TP study, treated foreign exchange loss as non-operating, and allowed the interest on unsecured loans as a business expenditure. The ground related to trade receivables was dismissed as conceded.

KSK MAHANDI POWER COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 535/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that due to the pending CIRP and the moratorium provisions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeals could not be proceeded with at that time. The appeals were dismissed in limine, with leave granted to seek restoration if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.

GVK INDUSTRIES LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD

ITA 1753/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the continuance of pending proceedings is prohibited once CIRP commences, as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the Supreme Court decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with at that time.

KSK MAHANADI POWER COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 858/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that due to the pending CIRP and the moratorium provisions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeals could not be proceeded with at that time. The appeals were dismissed in limine, with leave granted to seek restoration if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs KSK MAHANADI POWER COMPANY LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 919/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that due to the pending CIRP and the moratorium provisions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeals could not be proceeded with at that time. The appeals were dismissed in limine, with leave granted to seek restoration if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.

DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD,SECUNDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 967/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

GVK INDUSTRIES LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1752/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the continuance of pending proceedings is prohibited once CIRP commences, as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the Supreme Court decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with at that time.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 2244/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 Jul 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal remanded the issue of depreciation on non-compete fee back to the Assessing Officer for verification, following previous similar orders. The issue of depreciation on the film software library was also remanded for fresh consideration and valuation.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs PUSA PROMOD KUMAR, HYDERABAD

ITA 2269/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Jul 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without proper factual discussion and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment to consider the explanation of cash deposits and transfers.

MALAXMI AGRI VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1214/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Jul 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic as it did not address the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication with a speaking order.

PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN,NARSAPUR vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 555/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Jul 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs LAKSHMI BUILDERS & COMPANY, HYDERABAD

ITA 2265/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Jul 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without proper factual discussion and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment to consider the explanation of cash deposits and transfers.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs LAKSHMI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, HYDERABAD

ITA 2262/HYD/2018[2007-08]Status: Disposed21 Jul 2022AY 2007-08Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without proper factual discussion and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment to consider the explanation of cash deposits and transfers.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs LAKSHMI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, HYDERABAD

ITA 2263/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed21 Jul 2022AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without proper factual discussion and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment to consider the explanation of cash deposits and transfers.