ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — December 2022

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention of using borrowed funds for interest repayment was not believable. The seized documents indicated interest was paid on all loans, and the CIT(A) had taken a pragmatic view.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention of using borrowed funds for interest repayment was not believable. The seized documents indicated interest was paid on all loans, and the CIT(A) had taken a pragmatic view.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) can proceed ex-parte, dismissing the appeal without considering the merits is not sustainable. The CIT(A) should have examined the assessment order and grounds of appeal to provide reasoned disposal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention of using borrowed funds for interest repayment was not believable. The seized documents indicated interest was paid on all loans, and the CIT(A) had taken a pragmatic view.

The Tribunal found the conduct of the AO/TPO to be negligent for failing to implement the APA. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to forthwith give effect to the APA terms within two months.

The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both parties and the lack of objection from the Revenue for remanding the matter, decided to remand the appeals back to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO was directed to re-examine the issue after considering the assessee's submissions and affording sufficient opportunities.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, being a charging provision, could not be applied retrospectively for periods before its enabling machinery provision (Section 200A) came into effect on June 1, 2015. For periods after this date, the fee was leviable.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, being a charging provision, could not be applied retrospectively for periods before its enabling machinery provision (Section 200A) came into effect on June 1, 2015. For periods after this date, the fee was leviable.

The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both parties and the lack of objection from the Revenue for remanding the matter, decided to remand the appeals back to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO was directed to re-examine the issue after considering the assessee's submissions and affording sufficient opportunities.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, being a charging provision, could not be applied retrospectively for periods before its enabling machinery provision (Section 200A) came into effect on June 1, 2015. For periods after this date, the fee was leviable.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was without justification. It noted that the AO had made inquiries and allowed the claim, and the revenue failed to prove the order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The Tribunal also found that the revisionary proceedings were initiated while rectification proceedings were pending and subsequently dropped, which was improper.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, being a charging provision, could not be applied retrospectively for periods before its enabling machinery provision (Section 200A) came into effect on June 1, 2015. For periods after this date, the fee was leviable.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) was correct in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AA, 80G, and 10(23C). The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's finding that the assessee was charging commercial rates for its services and had failed to demonstrate that these charges were at a reasonable markup on cost. The Tribunal noted that the concessional treatment provided to indoor and outdoor patients constituted a meagre percentage of the assessee's total revenue. It referenced a Supreme Court decision mandating a certain percentage of free treatment for private hospitals that acquired land at cheaper rates, suggesting that some percentage of free or concessional treatment should be provided. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT(Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, emphasizing that activities generating profits beyond a certain limit (20% of overall receipts) could be considered in the nature of trade or business. Considering the totality of facts, the Tribunal found no error in the Commissioner's decision and upheld the order. All appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) was correct in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AA, 80G, and 10(23C). The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's finding that the assessee was charging commercial rates for its services and had failed to demonstrate that these charges were at a reasonable markup on cost. The Tribunal noted that the concessional treatment provided to indoor and outdoor patients constituted a meagre percentage of the assessee's total revenue. It referenced a Supreme Court decision mandating a certain percentage of free treatment for private hospitals that acquired land at cheaper rates, suggesting that some percentage of free or concessional treatment should be provided. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT(Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, emphasizing that activities generating profits beyond a certain limit (20% of overall receipts) could be considered in the nature of trade or business. Considering the totality of facts, the Tribunal found no error in the Commissioner's decision and upheld the order. All appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) was correct in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AA, 80G, and 10(23C). The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's finding that the assessee was charging commercial rates for its services and had failed to demonstrate that these charges were at a reasonable markup on cost. The Tribunal noted that the concessional treatment provided to indoor and outdoor patients constituted a meagre percentage of the assessee's total revenue. It referenced a Supreme Court decision mandating a certain percentage of free treatment for private hospitals that acquired land at cheaper rates, suggesting that some percentage of free or concessional treatment should be provided. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT(Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, emphasizing that activities generating profits beyond a certain limit (20% of overall receipts) could be considered in the nature of trade or business. Considering the totality of facts, the Tribunal found no error in the Commissioner's decision and upheld the order. All appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted a factual error in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the deposit amount and the assessee's apprehension of medical necessities. It was decided to set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that a company cannot have salary income. The issue of set-off against brought forward losses needs verification by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a directory requirement, not mandatory, and that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) overrides the Income Tax Act and Rules. Therefore, foreign tax credit should be allowed.