ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — September 2022

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.

The Tribunal held that the payments were in the nature of referral fees, not fees for technical services, and that the services were rendered outside India. It was also found that the Revenue failed to establish the existence of a PE in India for the Singapore companies.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order not on sound footing due to overlooking balance sheet factors like bank balance and debtors vs. creditors. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, pending proceedings against the corporate debtor are prohibited. The appeals cannot be proceeded with during the CIRP.

The tribunal held that due to the ongoing CIRP and the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine, granting leave to seek restoration if necessitated by the CIRP outcome.

The Tribunal held that once CIRP is initiated, a moratorium is declared, prohibiting the continuation of pending suits or proceedings. The Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons mandates that claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

The tribunal held that due to the ongoing CIRP and the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine, granting leave to restore them if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.

The tribunal held that due to the ongoing CIRP and the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine, granting leave to restore them if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.

The tribunal held that due to the ongoing CIRP and the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine, granting leave to restore them if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.

The Tribunal held that the moratorium declared under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings. Therefore, the appeal could not be proceeded with during the CIRP.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Infosys BPO Limited from the list of comparables in the transfer pricing analysis. For the corporate tax ground concerning Form 26AS, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the appeals cannot be proceeded with. The court referenced a Supreme Court decision stating that claims not part of a resolution plan stand extinguished.

The Tribunal directed a revisit to the AO to verify if interest paid and received were at the same rate. If so, the interest expenditure should be allowed against interest income. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that due to the ongoing CIRP and the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons was cited, stating that claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

The Tribunal held that once CIRP is initiated, a moratorium is declared, prohibiting the continuation of pending suits. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra, claims not part of the resolution plan are extinguished.

The Tribunal held that once CIRP is initiated, a moratorium is declared, prohibiting the continuation of pending suits or proceedings. The Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons mandates that claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

The tribunal held that due to the ongoing CIRP and the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine, granting leave to restore them if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings. Once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished.

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings. Once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished.

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings. Once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished.

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings. Once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished.

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings. Once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished.

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings. Once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished.

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings. Once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished.

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings. Once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, pending proceedings against the corporate debtor are prohibited. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, the Tribunal stated that claims not part of the resolution plan are extinguished.

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings. Once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons was relied upon, stating that claims not part of the resolution plan stand extinguished.

The Tribunal held that the continuation of pending proceedings against a corporate debtor is prohibited once CIRP is initiated. The claims are frozen and binding upon approval of a resolution plan, with unincluded claims being extinguished.

The tribunal held that due to the ongoing CIRP and the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine, granting leave to restore them if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra, pending proceedings against the corporate debtor are prohibited. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with at that time.

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

The Tribunal held that due to the ongoing CIRP and the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons was cited, stating that claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.

The Tribunal held that once CIRP is initiated, a moratorium is declared, prohibiting the continuation of pending suits. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra, claims not part of the resolution plan are extinguished.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, pending proceedings against the corporate debtor are prohibited. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, the Tribunal stated that claims not part of the resolution plan are extinguished.

The tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra, pending proceedings against the corporate debtor are prohibited. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with at that time.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra, pending proceedings against the corporate debtor are prohibited. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with at that time.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra, pending proceedings against the corporate debtor are prohibited. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with at that time.

The tribunal held that due to the ongoing CIRP and the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine, granting leave to restore them if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer with a direction to provide the assessee an opportunity to reconcile the difference in gross receipts. The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed the addition did not pertain to them and was in a position to reconcile the difference.

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

The Tribunal held that the continuation of pending proceedings is prohibited once CIRP commences. All claims not part of the resolution plan are extinguished upon its approval.

The Tribunal held that the continuation of pending proceedings is prohibited once CIRP commences. All claims not part of the resolution plan are extinguished upon its approval.

The Tribunal held that the continuation of pending proceedings is prohibited once CIRP commences. All claims not part of the resolution plan are extinguished upon its approval.

The Tribunal held that the continuation of pending proceedings is prohibited once CIRP commences. All claims not part of the resolution plan are extinguished upon its approval.

The Tribunal held that the continuation of pending proceedings is prohibited once CIRP commences. All claims not part of the resolution plan are extinguished upon its approval.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The Revenue was advised to pursue remedies within the CIRP process.

The Tribunal held that the continuation of pending proceedings is prohibited once CIRP commences. All claims not part of the resolution plan are extinguished upon its approval.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond four years from the end of the assessment year was not valid without establishing the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. The AO's reasons for reopening were considered vague and fanciful, lacking tangible material.

The Tribunal held that the moratorium prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings. While the appeal cannot be proceeded with during the CIRP, the parties can seek restoration if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.