ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — September 2022

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance of additional interest provisions. However, regarding the deduction u/s 80P, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh consideration, noting that similar claims were allowed in previous years and a ground was raised before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the moratorium prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings. Therefore, the appeal could not be proceeded with during the CIRP. The assessee was granted leave to seek restoration of the appeal if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.

The Tribunal held that the moratorium under the IBC prohibits continuation of pending proceedings. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, the appeal cannot be proceeded with during the CIRP.

The Tribunal held that the valuation of the helium balloon by the Customs Authorities should be followed, leading to a partial allowance of the addition. The disallowance of the licence fee under Section 43B was upheld due to lack of evidence from the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, following the Karnataka High Court's decision that Section 200A, as amended to include Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked the power to levy the fee for periods before this date.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, following the Karnataka High Court's decision that Section 200A, as amended to include Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked the power to levy the fee for periods before this date.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, following the Karnataka High Court's decision that Section 200A, as amended to include Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked the power to levy the fee for periods before this date.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, following the Karnataka High Court's decision that Section 200A, as amended to include Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked the power to levy the fee for periods before this date.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, following the Karnataka High Court's decision that Section 200A, as amended to include Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked the power to levy the fee for periods before this date.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, following the Karnataka High Court's decision that Section 200A, as amended to include Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked the power to levy the fee for periods before this date.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, following the Karnataka High Court's decision that Section 200A, as amended to include Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked the power to levy the fee for periods before this date.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the IBC, the appeal could not be proceeded with. The claims not part of the resolution plan are extinguished, and no proceedings can be continued.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the machinery provision under Section 200A for levying fee under Section 234E was introduced effectively from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no power to levy such fee for periods prior to that date.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, following the Karnataka High Court's decision that Section 200A, as amended to include Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked the power to levy the fee for periods before this date.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, following the Karnataka High Court's decision that Section 200A, as amended to include Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked the power to levy the fee for periods before this date.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, following the Karnataka High Court's decision that Section 200A, as amended to include Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked the power to levy the fee for periods before this date.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, following the Karnataka High Court's decision that Section 200A, as amended to include Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked the power to levy the fee for periods before this date.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, following the Karnataka High Court's decision that Section 200A, as amended to include Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked the power to levy the fee for periods before this date.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's direction to use LIBOR+2% for benchmarking interest on receivables, aligning with judicial precedents. However, the appeal was partly allowed, indicating some issues were decided in favor of the assessee.

The ITAT held that payments to BAE Systems for site testing and training were ancillary to the purchase of equipment and not 'fees for technical services' under the DTAA, thus not subject to TDS. For payments to Grintek Eswation, the matter was remanded for verification of TDS deduction.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not properly appreciated the facts and that the assessee's explanations required verification. Given that a PCIT had subsequently granted registration for a future period, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

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

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the issue, particularly concerning the assessee's liquor business. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide details of his IMFL business.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the issue, particularly concerning the assessee's liquor business. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide details of his IMFL business.

The Tribunal held that the continuation of pending proceedings is prohibited once CIRP commences. Claims not part of the resolution plan are extinguished, and no proceedings can be continued for such claims. The appeal is dismissed in limine, with liberty to seek restoration if necessitated by the CIRP outcome.

The Tribunal held that the remaining Rs. 4 lakhs, attributed to the husband's agricultural income from ancestral property and regular monthly rent deposits, was sufficiently explained. The explanation was considered probable based on the evidence provided.

The Tribunal held that interest on outstanding receivables is an international transaction. It directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to adopt LIBOR + 200 basis points for computing interest on foreign currency receivables, following established judicial precedents.

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

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