ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — August 2022

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs TUMU RAJKUMAR, HYDERABAD

ITA 1402/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. The Tribunal also noted that the validity of Section 153A assessments without incriminating material was a key issue.

HARITHA PRABHA AGRO PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 581/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs RAMKY ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT LTD, HYDERABAD

ITA 775/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that an agreement with a specified authority is essential for claiming deduction under Section 80IA(4), and mere consent/approval is insufficient. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction for delayed PF/ESI payments if made before the return filing due date, as amendments were prospective.

BALAKRISHNA MAKALA,SHAMSHABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1695/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not make a factual finding on whether the return was filed. Given the conflicting claims and the fact that the assessment was ex-parte, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the matter back to the AO for a fresh examination.

SAHAJA TIMBER PROJECTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 591/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

BANDHO REAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1885/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

SARVESWARA TIMBER ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 596/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

HARITHA AGRO AND TIMBER ESTATES PRIAVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 600/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

BHUVANESH INFRA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1890/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

SRI LALITHA AVENU PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 605/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

K LAXMA REDDY,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 621/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the valuation of shares was done in accordance with the applicable rules based on the last audited balance sheet. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner was not justified in disputing the valuation and initiating revision proceedings.

PRADEEPTHI INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1883/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the seized documents.

CORN ESTATES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 586/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

SASHI INFRA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 575/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

K VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 619/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the valuation of shares was done in accordance with the applicable rules based on the last audited balance sheet. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner was not justified in disputing the valuation and initiating revision proceedings.

CHOLAPADAM AGRO PROJECTS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 598/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

TEJINI REAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 604/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3(1), HYDERABAD vs RAMKY ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 774/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that an agreement with a specified authority is essential for claiming deduction under Section 80IA(4), and mere consent/approval is insufficient. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction for delayed PF/ESI payments if made before the return filing due date, as amendments were prospective.

N JAIVEER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 622/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the valuation of shares was done in accordance with the applicable rules based on the last audited balance sheet. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner was not justified in disputing the valuation and initiating revision proceedings.

ARKAMITRA REALTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1662/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

AMRUTHA AGRO ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1674/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs TUMU RAJKUMAR, HYDERABAD

ITA 1401/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. The Tribunal also noted that the validity of Section 153A assessments without incriminating material was a key issue.

TUMU RAJKUMAR,HYDERABAD vs ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1371/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. The Tribunal also noted that the validity of Section 153A assessments without incriminating material was a key issue.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs TUMU RAJKUMAR, HYDERABAD

ITA 1399/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. The Tribunal also noted that the validity of Section 153A assessments without incriminating material was a key issue.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs TUMU RAJKUMAR, HYDERABAD

ITA 1398/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. The Tribunal also noted that the validity of Section 153A assessments without incriminating material was a key issue.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs TUMU RAJKUMAR, HYDERABAD

ITA 1400/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. The Tribunal also noted that the validity of Section 153A assessments without incriminating material was a key issue.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs TUMU RAJKUMAR, HYDERABAD

ITA 1555/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. The Tribunal also noted that the validity of Section 153A assessments without incriminating material was a key issue.

MALAVIKA ESTATES AND REALTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 603/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

N JAIDEEP REDDY,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 623/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the valuation of shares was done in accordance with the applicable rules based on the last audited balance sheet. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner was not justified in disputing the valuation and initiating revision proceedings.

AVIJIT REALTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 585/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

MEKALA LALITHA,HYDERABAD vs ITO,WARD 8(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 393/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not make a factual finding on whether the return was filed. Given the conflicting claims and the fact that the assessment was ex-parte, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the matter back to the AO for a fresh examination.

PAWAN KUMAR MAKALA,SHAMSHABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1693/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not make a factual finding on whether the return was filed. Given the conflicting claims and the fact that the assessment was ex-parte, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the matter back to the AO for a fresh examination.

BUDHAPALITA TIMBER ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1665/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

ASPEN INFRA VENTURES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1747/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

GREENWOOD INFRACON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1661/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

ATLANTA ROCK GARDENS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1660/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

PULANE CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1748/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

AMRUTHA AGRO ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1881/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

KARISMA TOWN SHIP PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 577/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

AGRI GOLD MULTIMEDIA,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 583/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

ALDER INFRA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 199/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

GREEN MANGOS REAL ESTATES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1884/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

RL AVENUE PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 194/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer did not clearly establish that the seized documents belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a categorical finding on ownership of the documents.

LANCO INFRATECH LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2351/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, pending proceedings against the corporate debtor cannot be continued. The appeals were dismissed in limine, with leave granted to seek restoration if necessitated.

LANCO SOLAR ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2340/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, pending proceedings against the corporate debtor cannot be continued. The appeals were dismissed in limine, with leave granted to seek restoration if necessitated.

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

ITA 2217/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Aug 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's cross-objection. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the reopening of assessment, stating it was not a subject of discussion during the original assessment.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs THE HYDERABAD CRICKET ASSOCIATION, HYDERABAD

ITA 972/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Aug 2022AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a cryptic order allowing exemption based solely on 12AA registration without addressing the AO's observations. The Tribunal restored the issue of exemption under Section 11 and disallowance under Section 40A(3) to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs THE HYDERABAD CRICKET ASSOCIATION, HYDERABAD

ITA 2353/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Aug 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a cryptic order allowing exemption based solely on 12AA registration without addressing the AO's observations. The Tribunal restored the issue of exemption under Section 11 and disallowance under Section 40A(3) to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs P SHIVMOHAN REDDY, HYDERABAD

ITA 60/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Aug 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to conduct necessary inquiries. Given the assessee's admission and subsequent retraction, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after conducting further inquiries.

MEENA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED PART IX,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 522/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that due to the ongoing CIRP and the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the pending appeals could not be proceeded with. The claims not part of the resolution plan are extinguished, and no proceedings can be continued.