ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — December 2022

The tribunal restored the interest disallowance issue to the Assessing Officer for re-verification, following a previous order for an earlier assessment year. The additions for EPF/ESI, depreciation, and interest on fixed deposits were upheld.

The tribunal restored the interest disallowance issue to the Assessing Officer for re-verification, following a previous order for an earlier assessment year. The additions for EPF/ESI, depreciation, and interest on fixed deposits were upheld.

The Tribunal found discrepancies in remand reports and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine evidence regarding the genuineness of share applicants and their NRI status. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found discrepancies in remand reports and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine evidence regarding the genuineness of share applicants and their NRI status. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was impermissible as it was based on a change of opinion, not on any new tangible material. All the relevant facts were available to the Assessing Officer during the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that the explanation for the investment made by the assessee requires verification of ledger and bank accounts. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a habit of withdrawing and re-depositing cash. Considering the cash flow for the entire calendar year, including earlier withdrawals, would provide a clearer picture of the source of deposits. Therefore, the matter was remanded for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to present their case on merits, considering the pandemic period.

The Tribunal restored the issue of the sustained addition to the Assessing Officer's file. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to produce the vendee and substantiate the genuineness of the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it or provide rebuttal. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the explanation for the investment made by the assessee requires verification of ledger and bank accounts. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO, directing the assessee to produce loan creditors and documentary evidence to prove their identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. The assessee must also substantiate the source of the remaining Rs. 6,78,000/-.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not considering the adjournment request and dismissing the appeal without looking into the merits.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the activities undertaken by the assessee for development charges, layout regularization, and building penalization were allowable, and if the receipts exceeded the threshold limit under Section 2(15), needed to be examined in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the activities undertaken by the assessee for development charges, layout regularization, and building penalization were allowable, and if the receipts exceeded the threshold limit under Section 2(15), needed to be examined in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the activities undertaken by the assessee for development charges, layout regularization, and building penalization were allowable, and if the receipts exceeded the threshold limit under Section 2(15), needed to be examined in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the activities undertaken by the assessee for development charges, layout regularization, and building penalization were allowable, and if the receipts exceeded the threshold limit under Section 2(15), needed to be examined in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the activities undertaken by the assessee for development charges, layout regularization, and building penalization were allowable, and if the receipts exceeded the threshold limit under Section 2(15), needed to be examined in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the activities undertaken by the assessee for development charges, layout regularization, and building penalization were allowable, and if the receipts exceeded the threshold limit under Section 2(15), needed to be examined in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the activities undertaken by the assessee for development charges, layout regularization, and building penalization were allowable, and if the receipts exceeded the threshold limit under Section 2(15), needed to be examined in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the activities undertaken by the assessee for development charges, layout regularization, and building penalization were allowable, and if the receipts exceeded the threshold limit under Section 2(15), needed to be examined in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the activities undertaken by the assessee for development charges, layout regularization, and building penalization were allowable, and if the receipts exceeded the threshold limit under Section 2(15), needed to be examined in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the assessee's activities and receipts fall within the general public utility clause and exceed the threshold limit under Section 2(15) needs to be examined in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the activities undertaken by the assessee for development charges, layout regularization, and building penalization were allowable, and if the receipts exceeded the threshold limit under Section 2(15), needed to be examined in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.

The Tribunal allowed the depreciation on goodwill, following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. and a coordinate bench's order. The High Court had also upheld the Tribunal's decision on this aspect.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made adequate inquiries and the assessee had furnished necessary details. Therefore, the AO's order was not erroneous, even if the PCIT had a different opinion. The invocation of Section 263 was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the assessee's activities and receipts fall within the general public utility clause and exceed the threshold limit under Section 2(15) needs to be examined in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority.

The Tribunal restored the issue of TDS credit to the Assessing Officer for verification. The assessee is entitled to credit for tax paid in AY 2016-17 if not claimed elsewhere, for the income assessed in AY 2015-16.

The Tribunal held that the investment in a property solely in the name of an adult son does not qualify for deduction under Section 54F, as the ownership vests with the son and not the assessee. The reasoning aligns with the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not clearly adjudicated whether a transfer of land had occurred in terms of Section 2(47) of the Act. Crucial facts regarding the handing over of possession were missing.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing them to grant the assessee an opportunity to reconcile the difference in collections with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it failed to consider significant income sources while denying exemption. Therefore, the CIT(E) was justified in invoking Section 263.

The Tribunal upheld the 5% profit rate on liquor business, noting the assessee's concession and lack of books. For agricultural income, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 10% of the declared income, considering the VRO certificate and the smallness of the amount.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 14,80,000/- as a gift from the assessee's brother. It found that the brother had sufficient cash available from selling sheep purchased with a bank loan to make the gift.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee PF and ESI contributions deposited after the due date, as per Section 36(1)(va), is correct. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. clarifies that timely deposit is a condition for deduction, and this applies retrospectively.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing him to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the cash deposits with evidence. The Assessing Officer is to decide the issue afresh after providing a fair hearing.

The Tribunal found that the AO's observation that no reply was filed was incorrect, as the assessee claimed to have submitted details. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to examine the submitted details and decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking necessary adjudication. The tribunal held that a more in-depth analysis of the lenders' creditworthiness and transaction genuineness was required.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done to provide the assessees with an opportunity to present their case on merits, considering the pandemic period and the need to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done to provide the assessees with an opportunity to present their case on merits, considering the pandemic period and the need to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done to provide the assessees with an opportunity to present their case on merits, considering the pandemic period and the need to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the appeals were filed during the pandemic and that the assessees did not present their case effectively. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the files for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and conducted due verification, noting that 13 acres of land were converted to horticultural use during the relevant financial year. Therefore, the AO's order was not erroneous, even if it might have been prejudicial to revenue. The PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that an admission made under Section 132(4) is not conclusive and can be retracted if supported by cogent evidence. The addition was deleted as it was solely based on the statement without corroborative evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made adequate inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation, thus the assessment order was not erroneous. Consequently, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's PF and ESI contributions is justified. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. clarifies that timely deposit is mandatory for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(va).

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the assessee remained a resident of India for tax purposes, and his global income was taxable in India. However, it allowed the assessee's request for considering foreign tax credit for taxes paid in the USA.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic, ex-parte order without a speaking order, failing to decide the appeal on merits. It also noted that the CIT(A) should have kept the proceedings in abeyance as the Section 263 order was under challenge.

The Tribunal held that the payment made pursuant to an arbitration award for breach of contractual obligation is not an offence or prohibited by law. It was considered an expenditure incurred to avoid litigation and protect business interests.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's suo motu order regarding limitation periods during the pandemic. The appeal will now proceed to be heard on its merits.