ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — November 2022

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 510/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine or rebut it. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 553/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of site restoration costs to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to lead evidence. The Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 555/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine or rebut it, which is contrary to Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 556/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine or rebut it. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

SUMATHI CORPORATE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 530/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2022AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF/ESI, even if deposited before the due date of filing the return but after the prescribed due date under the respective law, is not eligible for deduction. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

MAYTAS-RITHWIK(JV),HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1324/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the disallowance of subcontract expenses, considering the material on record and any further submissions. Regarding the written-off work in progress, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the contract and reasons for non-certification of expenses.

MAHATMA REDDY SAMA,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 529/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2022AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case due to Covid conditions and health complications.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 554/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine or rebut it. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 509/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine or rebut it. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

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

ITA 53/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Heard29 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case, particularly regarding the addition under Section 68 and the estimation of business income, given the circumstances during the original assessment.

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

ITA 1888/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: Heard29 Nov 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case, particularly regarding the addition under Section 68 and the estimation of business income, given the circumstances during the original assessment.

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

ITA 16/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: Heard29 Nov 2022AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case, particularly regarding the addition under Section 68 and the estimation of business income, given the circumstances during the original assessment.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs AGRI GOLD CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

ITA 18/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Heard29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case, particularly regarding the addition under Section 68 and the estimation of business income, given the circumstances during the original assessment.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs AGRI GOLD CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

ITA 19/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Heard29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case, particularly regarding the addition under Section 68 and the estimation of business income, given the circumstances during the original assessment.

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

ITA 20/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Heard29 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case, particularly regarding the addition under Section 68 and the estimation of business income, given the circumstances during the original assessment.

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

ITA 213/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: Heard29 Nov 2022AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case, particularly regarding the addition under Section 68 and the estimation of business income, given the circumstances during the original assessment.

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

ITA 52/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Heard29 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case, particularly regarding the addition under Section 68 and the estimation of business income, given the circumstances during the original assessment.

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

ITA 49/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: Heard29 Nov 2022AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case, particularly regarding the addition under Section 68 and the estimation of business income, given the circumstances during the original assessment.

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

ITA 50/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Heard29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case, particularly regarding the addition under Section 68 and the estimation of business income, given the circumstances during the original assessment.

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

ITA 51/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Heard29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case, particularly regarding the addition under Section 68 and the estimation of business income, given the circumstances during the original assessment.

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

ITA 48/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: Heard29 Nov 2022AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case, particularly regarding the addition under Section 68 and the estimation of business income, given the circumstances during the original assessment.

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

ITA 1171/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: Heard29 Nov 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case, particularly regarding the addition under Section 68 and the estimation of business income, given the circumstances during the original assessment.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs AGRI GOLD CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

ITA 17/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: Heard29 Nov 2022AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case, particularly regarding the addition under Section 68 and the estimation of business income, given the circumstances during the original assessment.

VENKATA RAMI REDDY CONSTRUCTIONS,KADAPA vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), KADAPA

ITA 424/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: Heard29 Nov 2022AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was not in accordance with law as the revenue failed to prove the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. It was noted that estimation of income is based on guesswork and if the AO takes a possible view, it cannot be challenged under Section 263.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KADAPA vs PRITHAM & PRATHIK HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED, KADAPA

ITA 97/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition under Section 69 as the reference to the Valuation Officer was invalid without rejecting the books of account. However, regarding the addition under Section 68, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the genuineness and creditworthiness of the shareholders.

ARUNA PEGATRAJU,NELLORE vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

ITA 379/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Heard28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that as per Sections 4 and 5 of the Vivad se Vishwas Act, once a certificate is issued under Section 5(1), any pending appeal is deemed withdrawn. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs JCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 593/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2022AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that once a subsequent assessment order granted relief, the assessee had no grievance, and the appeal became infructuous. The CIT(A) should not have decided the appeal on merits after the assessee sought withdrawal.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 58/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors for the cash deposits. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were upheld.

ITO WARD-1, NELLORE vs RAMAKRISHNA REDDY RASAM, NELLORE

ITA 383/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: Pending28 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to verify it as per Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

ARUNA PEGATRAJU,NELLORE vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

ITA 378/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: Heard28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that as per Sections 4 and 5 of the Vivad se Vishwas Act, once a certificate is issued under Section 5(1), any pending appeal is deemed withdrawn. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

MUSADDILAL GEMS JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 560/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors for the cash deposits. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were upheld.

VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 561/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors for the cash deposits. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were upheld.

ITO WARD-1, NELLORE vs RAMAKRISHNA REDDY RASAM, NELLORE

ITA 384/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: Pending28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to verify it as per Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

ITO WARD-1, NELLORE vs RAMAKRISHNA REDDY RASAM, NELLORE

ITA 385/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Pending28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to verify it as per Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

ARUNA PEGATRAJU,NELLORE vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

ITA 377/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: Heard28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that as per Sections 4 and 5 of the Vivad se Vishwas Act, once a certificate is issued under Section 5(1), any pending appeal is deemed withdrawn. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs M/S. MUSADDILAL GEMS AND JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 59/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors for the cash deposits. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were upheld.

RK INFRA & ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, HYDERABAD

ITA 188/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) passed a non-speaking and perfunctory order without making necessary inquiries or applying his mind. Therefore, the revision by the PCIT under Section 263 was justified.

YASHODA NIMMATURI,HYDERABAD vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 333/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Nov 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of cash deposits from the assessee's mother to the AO for verification of her bank account. Other grounds were not adjudicated as they were not pressed.

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

ITA 804/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that following the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. Therefore, the appeals have become infructuous.

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

ITA 802/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Nov 2022AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that following the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. Therefore, the appeals have become infructuous.

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

ITA 803/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that following the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. Therefore, the appeals have become infructuous.

MBS JEWELLER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 147/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: Heard22 Nov 2022AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the SBI's stated waiver amount was due to a clerical error. It accepted the assessee's contention that the actual one-time settlement amount was as declared in the return, setting aside the addition.

RAJA BABU NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 310/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Nov 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of cash deposits of Rs. 26,60,000/- from the assessee's mother to the AO for verification of her bank account. Other grounds were not adjudicated as they were not pressed.

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

ITA 321/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Nov 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of cash deposits from the assessee's mother to the AO for verification of her bank account. Other grounds were not adjudicated as they were not pressed.

BUDHA PALITA TIMBER ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 201/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Heard21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13Withdrawn

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

NAGAVALI PLANTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 54/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Heard21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13Withdrawn

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

NAGAVALI PLANTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 55/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Heard21 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Withdrawn

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

NAGAVALI PLANTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 56/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Heard21 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Withdrawn

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (3), HYDERABAD

ITA 695/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iv)(b) for electrical projects, including enhanced claims, back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD

ITA 696/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iv)(b) for electrical projects, including enhanced claims, back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.