ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — October 2022

VENKATA SAI AGENCIES,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1624/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid. Since the closing stock of the previous year, which included the additional income, was accepted by the AO in the prior assessment year, it correctly became the opening stock for the current year. The AO lacked tangible material to reopen the assessment for AY 2010-11.

V.RAJASEKHAR,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), HYDERABAD

ITA 1357/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed31 Oct 2022AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind to the facts and considered relevant case laws, making a reasoned decision. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was incorrect as the AO's assessment order was not erroneous.

BARTRONICS INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 723/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11Dismissed

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

LEO EDIBLES & FATS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 17/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had not conclusively determined the facts regarding the nature of the transactions. Factual determination was required to ascertain if edible oils were connected commodities and if the hedging transaction in edible oils was against merchandise in stock.

VASU PHARMA DISTRIBUTORS,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1622/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid. Since the closing stock of the previous year, which included the additional income, was accepted by the AO in the prior assessment year, it correctly became the opening stock for the current year. The AO lacked tangible material to reopen the assessment for AY 2010-11.

VASU AGENCIES,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1623/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid. Since the closing stock of the previous year, which included the additional income, was accepted by the AO in the prior assessment year, it correctly became the opening stock for the current year. The AO lacked tangible material to reopen the assessment for AY 2010-11.

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

ITA 1086/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the appeal could not be proceeded with. Parties were directed to work out their remedies before the Adjudicating Authority under the Code.

PALLAVI CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 649/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that if the payee has included the interest income in its return and paid taxes, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) can be made. The issue of enhancement was also restored to the AO for proper opportunity.

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

ITA 2218/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the continuance of pending proceedings against the corporate debtor is prohibited during the moratorium period. Parties are to work out their remedies before the Adjudicating Authority under the Code.

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

ITA 2219/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the continuance of pending proceedings against the corporate debtor is prohibited during the moratorium period. Parties are to work out their remedies before the Adjudicating Authority under the Code.

TRINITY CLEANTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 470/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Oct 2022AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal addressed the issues as follows: Regarding the invocation of section 153A and the requirement of incriminating material, the judgment does not explicitly detail the Tribunal's finding on this specific point, but it proceeds to discuss other grounds. On the issue of provision for late delivery charges and ROC expenditure, the Tribunal noted the revenue's contention that deductions are allowed only on actual payment, citing section 43B. However, the Tribunal found that no evidence was presented to show actual payment of the disallowed amounts during the assessment year. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issue of bonus/leave encashment to the AO with a direction to allow it on an actual payment basis for the financial year under consideration. The Tribunal did not find error in the order of the lower authority regarding the disallowance of provision for late delivery charges and ROC expenditure, deciding this issue against the assessee. The Tribunal also did not find any error in the order passed by the lower authority regarding the addition to book profit under section 115JB, stating that the issue is decided against the assessee. The specific findings on grounds related to section 153D approval, section 35D, and interest under sections 234A/234B are not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

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

ITA 627/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Oct 2022AY 2010-11Dismissed

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

BATRONICS INDIA LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, HYDERABAD

ITA 430/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the appeal could not be proceeded with. Parties were directed to work out their remedies before the Adjudicating Authority under the Code.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs GOKUL GEMS AND JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 837/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Oct 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate efforts to retrieve the computer password or summon the accountant. The Tribunal also noted that no specific questions were asked about other premises where cash might be kept. Since the cash was subsequently deposited as per the book balance, it could not be considered unexplained.

TRINITY CLEANTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 543/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Oct 2022AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal addressed the issues as follows: Regarding the invocation of section 153A and the requirement of incriminating material, the judgment does not explicitly detail the Tribunal's finding on this specific point, but it proceeds to discuss other grounds. On the issue of provision for late delivery charges and ROC expenditure, the Tribunal noted the revenue's contention that deductions are allowed only on actual payment, citing section 43B. However, the Tribunal found that no evidence was presented to show actual payment of the disallowed amounts during the assessment year. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issue of bonus/leave encashment to the AO with a direction to allow it on an actual payment basis for the financial year under consideration. The Tribunal did not find error in the order of the lower authority regarding the disallowance of provision for late delivery charges and ROC expenditure, deciding this issue against the assessee. The Tribunal also did not find any error in the order passed by the lower authority regarding the addition to book profit under section 115JB, stating that the issue is decided against the assessee. The specific findings on grounds related to section 153D approval, section 35D, and interest under sections 234A/234B are not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

AGARWAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1111/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the reconciliation statement provided by the assessee. Therefore, the issue of the interest difference was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1)., HYDERABAD vs A.BHARATHI., HYDERABAD

ITA 1183/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2022AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the revised cash flow statement to the Assessing Officer for his remarks, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

KAPIL PROPERTY DEVELOPERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN VEDA CONSTRUCTIONS ),HANUMAKONDA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 173/HYD/2022[2007-08]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2022AY 2007-08Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the claimed land development expenses. The payments made were unverified, and the commercial activity had not commenced, making the expenses improbable.

K.RAVINDRANTH,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 988/HYD/2019[2006-07]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2022AY 2006-07Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to cross-examine the witness whose statement formed the basis of the addition, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for further verification and cross-examination.

AGARWAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1112/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the reconciliation statement provided by the assessee. Therefore, the issue of the interest difference was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1)., HYDERABAD vs A. BHARATHI., HYDERABAD

ITA 1184/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2022AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the revised cash flow statement to the Assessing Officer for his remarks, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

VONAMALA JAGDISHWARAIAH,SECUNDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 200/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: Heard21 Oct 2022AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was essentially challenging the assessment order, despite mentioning the rectification order. The doctrine of merger applies, and the appeal should be treated as challenging the assessment order on merits.

AISWARYA ART CREATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-RANGE -13, HYDERABAD

ITA 1535/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored both the issue of sundry creditors and the disallowance of expenses to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to provide cogent evidence and justifications to substantiate its claims.

BASAI STEELS & POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1891/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2022AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that upon approval of a resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all claims not part of the plan stand extinguished, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with.

BASAI STEEL & POWER LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 891/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that upon approval of a resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all claims not part of the plan stand extinguished, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with.

BASAI STEELS & POWERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1114/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal held that upon approval of a resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all claims not part of the plan stand extinguished, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with.

MADHU VELAYUDHAN,HYDERABAD vs ITO WARD-11(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 137/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue because no proper inquiry was conducted to verify the claim of agricultural income. The PCIT's order under Section 263 was therefore upheld.

INDIA TELECOM FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 391/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in both parties' stands and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to determine ownership of the asset and the effect of the High Court's decision.

MANJUSHA NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 322/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate her claim that the salary income was inadvertently offered as business income. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the evidence.

TALLA LAXMI,HYDERABAD vs ACIT CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 230/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Heard19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a 'cut and paste' order not pertaining to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1-(2), HYDERABAD vs SUNIL NARANG, HYDERABAD

ITA 57/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: Heard19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done on account of the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars.

JAYASRI AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 392/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in both parties' stands and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to determine ownership of the asset and the effect of the High Court's decision.

SUVISHAL POWER GEN LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 389/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in both parties' stands and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to determine ownership of the asset and the effect of the High Court's decision.

SAPTAGIRI GRAMEENA BANK,CHITTOOR vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

ITA 341/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: Heard19 Oct 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Since the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal and there was no objection from the Revenue, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

MANJUSHA NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 323/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee an opportunity to substantiate her claim that the salary income was inadvertently offered as business income. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issue afresh after due verification and opportunity of hearing.

SEVERA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 388/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in both parties' stands and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to determine ownership of the asset and the effect of the High Court's decision.

GOLDSTONE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 390/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in both parties' stands and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to determine ownership of the asset and the effect of the High Court's decision.

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs DELOITTE AND TOUCHE ASSURANCE AND ENTERPRISES RISK SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 245/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: Heard18 Oct 2022AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issue of delayed employees' contribution to PF & ESI stands decided against the assessee by the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was reversed.

KAPIL FOODS AND STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,WARANGAL vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 174/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Oct 2022AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal, following its own coordinate bench's order for earlier assessment years, set aside the impugned orders. The issue of disallowance of interest was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification.

KAUSALYA AGRO FARMS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 176/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Oct 2022AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal, following its own coordinate bench's order for earlier assessment years, set aside the impugned orders. The issue of disallowance of interest was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification.

SRINIVASULU NAIDU ANCHURU,NELLORE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, NELLORE

ITA 1667/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed18 Oct 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing him to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate his case by producing the parties from whom advances were received and providing evidence regarding the deals.

TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 541/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed18 Oct 2022AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of interest income difference to the AO for verification and directed the AO to restrict the disallowance on land development expenditure to 10% of the claimed amount, following its own previous orders.

KAUSALYA MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMTED,KARIMNAGAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 175/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Oct 2022AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal, following its own coordinate bench's order for earlier assessment years, set aside the impugned orders. The issue of disallowance of interest was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification.

INDUR AVENUES AND FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 177/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Oct 2022AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal, following its own coordinate bench's order for earlier assessment years, set aside the impugned orders. The issue of disallowance of interest was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification.

SRINATH REDDY NALLA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1233/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed18 Oct 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts due to the failure to produce supporting bills and vouchers for purchases made after closing the business. The estimated business income by the lower authorities was also found to be justified.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs JATH WIND ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1321/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed18 Oct 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that upfront fees and other charges incurred for obtaining loans utilized for setting up an industry are allowable as revenue expenditure. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Rama Multi Tech Ltd. was followed.

JHONY SHAIK,NALGONDA vs ITO WARD-1, NALGONDA

ITA 233/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 Oct 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce relevant material to substantiate his claim regarding the business of gold conversion.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

ITA 35/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Oct 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Section 153C assessments can only be initiated if incriminating material is found during a search. It also found that returns filed under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, were valid, and a newly opened bank account could not be considered undisclosed income. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

ORBIT VENTURES,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 13/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Section 153C assessments can only be initiated if incriminating material is found during a search. It also found that returns filed under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, were valid, and a newly opened bank account could not be considered undisclosed income. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD vs ORBIT VENTURES, HYDERABAD

ITA 36/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that Section 153C assessments can only be initiated if incriminating material is found during a search. It also found that returns filed under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, were valid, and a newly opened bank account could not be considered undisclosed income. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.