ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — January 2023

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that an order passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act is not appealable under Section 246A. Therefore, the appeals filed by the directors were dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to explain the source of the cash deposits with cogent evidence. The assessee's conduct was non-compliant before both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that an order passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act is not appealable under Section 246A. Therefore, the appeals filed by the directors were dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's directions regarding limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case. The assessee's inability to appear before the CIT(A) was attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle of advancing substantial justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after verifying documents and affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate his claims. Despite this, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the identity and creditworthiness of share subscribers, and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO under Section 68. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was reversed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view on the disallowance of interest expenses attributable to non-business investments and the applicability of Section 14A. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under Section 14A by considering only exempt-yielding investments and restricting the disallowance to the exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)-NFAC's order did not consider the prior Tribunal order in quantum proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employee contributions is justified. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., which clarifies that timely deposit is a condition for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 5,12,000/- per plot should be adopted for capital gains, not the lower consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. However, the issue of 'cost of improvement' was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view on the disallowance of interest expenses attributable to non-business investments and the applicability of Section 14A. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under Section 14A by considering only exempt-yielding investments and restricting the disallowance to the exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the identity and creditworthiness of share subscribers, and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO under Section 68. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was reversed.

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

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view on the disallowance of interest expenses attributable to non-business investments and the applicability of Section 14A. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under Section 14A by considering only exempt-yielding investments and restricting the disallowance to the exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employee contributions is justified. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., which clarifies that timely deposit is a condition for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the delay in receiving receivables constitutes an international transaction that needs to be benchmarked. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide an agreement specifying the credit period and did not offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal held that the assessees' explanation for the cash payments was not credible and lacked human probability. The Tribunal found no evidence of cash withdrawals from the firm or the return of cash by the builder, upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's claim of being a senior citizen and housewife and the failure to participate in proceedings, granted one more opportunity. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's claim of being a senior citizen and housewife and the failure to participate in proceedings, granted one more opportunity. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's claim of being a senior citizen and housewife and the failure to participate in proceedings, granted one more opportunity. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's claim of being a senior citizen and housewife and the failure to participate in proceedings, granted one more opportunity. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessees' explanation for the cash payments was not credible and lacked human probability. The Tribunal found no evidence of cash withdrawals from the firm or the return of cash by the builder, upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee declared profit under Section 44AD on a declared turnover, the cash deposits to the extent of that turnover should be accepted as explained. However, the remaining unexplained cash deposits and the disallowance of deductions under Sections 80C and 80DDB were sustained due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's claim of being a senior citizen and housewife and the failure to participate in proceedings, granted one more opportunity. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was vitiated in the eyes of law and therefore null and void because the Assessing Officer issued a notice of demand at the stage of the draft order, which should only be done at the final order stage. Consequently, the income offered in the return was treated as the total income.

The Tribunal held that the assessees' explanation for the cash payments was not credible and lacked human probability. The Tribunal found no evidence of cash withdrawals from the firm or the return of cash by the builder, upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's claim of being a senior citizen and housewife and the failure to participate in proceedings, granted one more opportunity. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The tribunal decided to allow the appeals for assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 for statistical purposes. However, the appeal for assessment year 2013-14 was dismissed.

The tribunal decided to allow the appeals for assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 for statistical purposes. However, the appeal for assessment year 2013-14 was dismissed.

The tribunal decided to allow the appeals for assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 for statistical purposes. However, the appeal for assessment year 2013-14 was dismissed.

The tribunal decided to allow the appeals for assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 for statistical purposes. However, the appeal for assessment year 2013-14 was dismissed.

The tribunal decided to allow the appeals for assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 for statistical purposes. However, the appeal for assessment year 2013-14 was dismissed.

The tribunal decided to allow the appeals for assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 for statistical purposes. However, the appeal for assessment year 2013-14 was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) came into effect later, and disallowance of Section 80P deduction at the 143(1) stage, without affording an opportunity to the assessee, violates principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without proper examination of crucial documents and evidence. The CIT(A)'s order was considered cryptic, non-speaking, and in violation of procedural rules.

The Tribunal held that the addition for interest on sundry debtors was not justified as it was based on a statement from a third party and not on any incriminating material or direct evidence from the assessee for the impugned assessment year. However, the estimation of profit at 5% on liquor turnover was upheld as the assessee had not maintained books of account and had previously agreed to this rate.

The Tribunal held that the addition for interest on sundry debtors was not justified as it was based on a statement from a third party and not on any incriminating material or direct evidence from the assessee for the impugned assessment year. However, the estimation of profit at 5% on liquor turnover was upheld as the assessee had not maintained books of account and had previously agreed to this rate.

The Tribunal held that the addition for interest on sundry debtors was not justified as it was based on a statement from a third party and not on any incriminating material or direct evidence from the assessee for the impugned assessment year. However, the estimation of profit at 5% on liquor turnover was upheld as the assessee had not maintained books of account and had previously agreed to this rate.

The Tribunal held that the addition for interest on sundry debtors was not justified as it was based on a statement from a third party and not on any incriminating material or direct evidence from the assessee for the impugned assessment year. However, the estimation of profit at 5% on liquor turnover was upheld as the assessee had not maintained books of account and had previously agreed to this rate.

The Tribunal held that the addition for interest on sundry debtors was not justified as it was based on a statement from a third party and not on any incriminating material or direct evidence from the assessee for the impugned assessment year. However, the estimation of profit at 5% on liquor turnover was upheld as the assessee had not maintained books of account and had previously agreed to this rate.

The Tribunal acknowledged the Supreme Court ruling that late deposits of PF & ESI are not deductible. However, it remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if a specific portion of the deposit was made within the due date and to re-examine the disallowance of professional tax.

The Tribunal held that the amount received was for services to be rendered over a period of 25 years, and therefore, only the proportionate amount for the period the services were rendered should be treated as income. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue had accepted the assessee's accounting policy in subsequent years.

The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of Rs. 8,18,000 was undisputed, and the explanation offered by the assessee, supported by his father's letter, was sufficient to cover the cash deposits. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the impugned orders. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness of the additional evidence furnished by the assessee and, if found correct, to estimate the net profit at 5% of the total deemed turnover.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the impugned orders. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness of the additional evidence furnished by the assessee and, if found correct, to estimate the net profit at 5% of the total deemed turnover.