ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — September 2022

INCOME TAX OFFICERS,WARD -2(1), HYDERABAD vs OM PRAKASH JHAKHOTIA, HYDERABAD

ITA 284/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders for the relevant assessment years were already quashed by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections had become infructuous.

SANDEEP GOUD NATHI,WARANGAL vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 415/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2022AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. The assessee was directed to appear without seeking adjournments.

POOJA FASHION,HYDERABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 500/HYD/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2022AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal acknowledged the hardship caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, citing Supreme Court orders regarding limitation periods. It held that the assessee's non-appearance was due to pandemic-related difficulties and not wilful.

NECX PRIVATE LIMITED,RANGA REDDY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 494/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of the difference between Form 26AS and P&L to the Assessing Officer for further verification and directed the deletion of the addition on account of cash deposits, finding them to be from cash sales.

INCOME TAX OFFICERS,WARD -2(1), HYDERABAD vs OM PRAKASH JHAKHOTIA, HYDERABAD

ITA 283/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2022AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders for the relevant assessment years were already quashed by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections had become infructuous.

SINGANAMALA RAMESH BABU,CHENNAI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

ITA 531/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that interest receivable relating to earlier years, which was already offered to tax, cannot be taxed again. However, for the current year, interest on sundry debtors outstanding must be declared on an accrual basis as the assessee follows the mercantile system.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HYDERABAD vs AMANCHIND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1810/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the addition related to Shri Y. Venkateswara Rao, finding his statement credible due to his conduct. However, for other creditors like M/s. Anil Traders, M/s. Gagan Enterprises, Shri Madhukar Rao, and M/s. RVR Infrastructure, the matter was remanded for further inquiry.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD vs AMACHIND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1488/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the addition related to Shri Y. Venkateswara Rao, finding his statement credible due to his conduct. However, for other creditors like M/s. Anil Traders, M/s. Gagan Enterprises, Shri Madhukar Rao, and M/s. RVR Infrastructure, the matter was remanded for further inquiry.

LAKSHMANA PUVVADA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 233/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 39,80,000/- related to the demonetization period cash deposits, finding the assessee's explanation of misuse of bank facility unsubstantiated. However, for the remaining amount, the Tribunal directed an estimation of profit at 5%, reducing the addition.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD vs VISION VENTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 782/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in its decision to delete the addition. The Tribunal agreed that the AO's action under Section 154 was inappropriate and that the CIT(A) had rightly considered the assessee's reconciliation.

PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 133/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153A was valid as the assessee's name was in the search warrant and panchnama. Certain additions were sustained, while others were directed to be deleted or restored to the Assessing Officer for re-computation.

MANDAVA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 26/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned. For AY 2016-17, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld. For AY 2017-18, the restriction of disallowance to exempt income was affirmed.

POLYVET PHARMACEUTICALS,HYDERABAD vs ITO(TDS), WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 446/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: Heard26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in filing the appeals. Relying on the legal maxim 'Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt', the Tribunal found no grounds to condone the delay.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs PUJALA MAHESH BABU, RANGA REDDY

ITA 126/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153A was valid as the assessee's name was in the search warrant and panchnama. Certain additions were sustained, while others were directed to be deleted or restored to the Assessing Officer for re-computation.

NALGONDA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 172/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2022AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal, following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification and computation. The Tribunal noted that identical issues had been restored to the AO for a fresh determination.

MANDAVA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 27/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned. For AY 2016-17, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld. For AY 2017-18, the restriction of disallowance to exempt income was affirmed.

PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 135/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153A was valid as the assessee's name was in the search warrant and panchnama. Certain additions were sustained, while others were directed to be deleted or restored to the Assessing Officer for re-computation.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs MANDAVA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 54/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned. For AY 2016-17, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld. For AY 2017-18, the restriction of disallowance to exempt income was affirmed.

POLYVET PHARMACEUTICALS,HYDERABAD vs ITO(TDS), WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 449/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: Heard26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in filing the appeals. Relying on the legal maxim 'Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt', the Tribunal found no grounds to condone the delay.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ANANTAPUR vs SRI TADIPATRI BABU, ANANTAPUR

ITA 2381/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking sound reasoning, especially given the cash transactions and unverified creditworthiness of the alleged business associates. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1-(1), HYDERABAD vs GOKUL KRISHI UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 99/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found the CIT(Appeals)'s order lacked sound reasoning and proper appreciation of facts, particularly regarding the large deposits of new currency notes. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

POLYVET PHARMACEUTICALS,HYDERABAD vs ITO(TDS), WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 445/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: Heard26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in filing the appeals. Relying on the legal maxim 'Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt', the Tribunal found no grounds to condone the delay.

ZULFI RAVDJEE,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 270/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found the 10% disallowance for unsubstantiated expenses to be on the higher side, considering the profit rate declared by the assessee, and reduced it to Rs. 10,00,000/-. The issue of TDS disallowance was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification, as the assessee had already made a suo motu disallowance.

PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 134/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153A was valid as the assessee's name was in the search warrant and panchnama. Certain additions were sustained, while others were directed to be deleted or restored to the Assessing Officer for re-computation.

POLYVET PHARMACEUTICALS,HYDERABAD vs ITO(TDS), WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 448/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: Heard26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in filing the appeals. Relying on the legal maxim 'Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt', the Tribunal found no grounds to condone the delay.

PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 132/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153A was valid as the assessee's name was in the search warrant and panchnama. Certain additions were sustained, while others were directed to be deleted or restored to the Assessing Officer for re-computation.

POLYVET PHARMACEUTICALS,HYDERABAD vs ITO(TDS), WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 447/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: Heard26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in filing the appeals. Relying on the legal maxim 'Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt', the Tribunal found no grounds to condone the delay.

BADRI HARI BABU,NELLORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

ITA 125/HYD/2021[2009-10]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 201(1) allowing relief if the payee has paid tax was not applicable to non-residents for the assessment year in question. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s direction to verify taxes paid by the payee was incorrect.

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE vs BADRI MANJULA, NELLORE

ITA 780/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 201(1) allowing relief if the payee has paid tax was not applicable to non-residents for the assessment year in question. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s direction to verify taxes paid by the payee was incorrect.

KOILAKUNTLA CO-OPERATIVE TOWN BANK LIMITED,NANDYAL vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

ITA 184/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

CURIA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(AFTER MERGER AMRI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs ACIT CIRCLE -1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 164/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2022AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal found that the rejection of additional evidence by the CIT(A) was not justified and that the matter required fresh adjudication. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

BADRI HARI BABU,NELLORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

ITA 126/HYD/2021[2009-10]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 201(1) allowing relief if the payee has paid tax was not applicable to non-residents for the assessment year in question. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s direction to verify taxes paid by the payee was incorrect.

GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED(GE INDIA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED),DELHI vs ASST. DIT-I, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

ITA 274/HYD/2012[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that payments made for the use of software, where only a license to use is granted and not the copyright, do not constitute royalty. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre Of Excellence (P) Ltd, the assessee is not liable for TDS.

YASHODA HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE 17 (2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and subsequently allowed the assessee's request to withdraw them. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

KISHAN NAIK NENAVATH,VIKARABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICERS,WARD -1, VIKARABAD

ITA 59/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12Allowed

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's suo motu order regarding limitation periods during the pandemic. The tribunal also set aside the CIT(A) orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits.

GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED(GE INDIA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED),DELHI vs ASST. DIT-I, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

ITA 273/HYD/2012[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that payments made for the use of software, where only a license to use is granted and no copyright is transferred, do not constitute royalty. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre Of Excellence (P) Ltd, the assessee is not liable for TDS.

TNS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 573/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of two specific companies from the list of comparables based on consistent past rulings in the assessee's own case. The issues related to management fee, trademark license fee, and depreciation on software license fee were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification, following earlier precedents.

BA CONTINUUM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 893/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and restored the issue to the PCIT's file for fresh examination. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce evidence of a contractual obligation to pay payroll taxes without deducting them from employee salaries.

YASHODA HEALTHCARE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE 17 (2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Subsequently, based on the assessee's request to withdraw and the Revenue's no objection, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

VEERA VENKATA LAKSHMI MEKALA,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 320/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the facts and decided the appeal on merits, rather than dismissing it ex-parte. Technicalities should not impede substantial justice.

KISHAN NAIK NENAVATH,VIKARABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICERS,WARD-1, VIKARABAD

ITA 60/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2022AY 2012-13Allowed

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's suo motu order regarding limitation periods during the pandemic. The tribunal also set aside the CIT(A) orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits.

RAMYA CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 639/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 147 was valid as it was independent of any search proceedings. However, regarding the interest on debentures, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for further examination of the debenture scheme and interest credit.

GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED(GE INDIA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED),DELHI vs ASST. DIT-I, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

ITA 272/HYD/2012[2008-09*]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that payments made for the use of software, where only a license to use is granted and not the copyright, do not constitute royalty. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre Of Excellence (P) Ltd, the assessee is not liable for TDS.

SAICHANDU THANNERU,NELLORE vs ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

ITA 347/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2022AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the DVO's report was considered, the assessee should be given some benefit due to the subsequent sale deed valuation aligning with the SRO's valuation. The addition was restricted to 50% of a calculated amount, considering self-supervision charges and valuation differences.

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

ITA 740/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that CCDs are in the nature of debt until conversion into equity. It upheld the TPO/AO's action of benchmarking the interest rate using LIBOR plus a spread, considering it to be the internationally accepted method for such transactions.

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

ITA 1590/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that CCDs are in the nature of debt until conversion into equity. It upheld the TPO/AO's action of benchmarking the interest rate using LIBOR plus a spread, considering it to be the internationally accepted method for such transactions.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs LEO MERIDIAN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS & HOTELS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 269/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prohibits continuation of pending proceedings. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

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

ITA 1591/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that CCDs are in the nature of debt until conversion, and therefore, the benchmarking of interest by applying LIBOR plus 200 basis points by the lower authorities was correct. The assessee's argument for using SBI PLR was rejected.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs NSL MINING RESOURCES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1411/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2022AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO regarding the loss claimed by the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) due to the assessee company's name being struck off.

SEAPORT CARGO LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 307/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed20 Sept 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, even if paid after the statutory due dates. Amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.