ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — February 2023

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs JAIVEER REDDY NALAMADA, HYDERABAD

ITA 55/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the section 263 orders were quashed by the ITAT, all consequential assessment orders based on them became infructuous. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the assessee's appeals.

SARITHA AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 77/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable. It found that the satisfaction note was not year-specific, the seized documents were 'dumb' without clear particulars, and evidence lacked the necessary Section 65B certificate for electronic records.

KAUSHIK REDDY PADI,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 82/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable. It found that the satisfaction note was not year-specific, the seized documents were 'dumb' without clear particulars, and evidence lacked the necessary Section 65B certificate for electronic records.

SWAROOPA SIMHADRI,RANGA REDDY vs ITO, WARD-8(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 85/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the due dates for filing the return of income and Form 67 were extended by CBDT notifications. Therefore, the assessee had complied with Rule 128(9) and was entitled to claim FTC.

ANJANI PRS BLENDS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 88/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the computation and levy of late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective. Therefore, late fees could not be charged for TDS statements relating to periods prior to June 1, 2015, even if the statements were filed late after that date.

BALLELA SAI SREE,NELLORE vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 9/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable. It found that the satisfaction note was not year-specific, the seized documents were 'dumb' without clear particulars, and evidence lacked the necessary Section 65B certificate for electronic records.

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE1(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 697/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction for electrical projects to the Assessing Officer for verification, following previous directions. It also directed the AO to allow enhanced deduction for electrical projects and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on irrigation projects.

GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 698/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction for electrical projects to the Assessing Officer for verification, following previous directions. It also directed the AO to allow enhanced deduction for electrical projects and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on irrigation projects.

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

ITA 750/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction for electrical projects to the Assessing Officer for verification, following previous directions. It also directed the AO to allow enhanced deduction for electrical projects and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on irrigation projects.

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

ITA 752/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction for electrical projects to the Assessing Officer for verification, following previous directions. It also directed the AO to allow enhanced deduction for electrical projects and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on irrigation projects.

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

ITA 754/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction for electrical projects to the Assessing Officer for verification, following previous directions. It also directed the AO to allow enhanced deduction for electrical projects and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on irrigation projects.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs JAIDEEP REDDY NALAMADA, HYDERABAD

ITA 54/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the section 263 orders were quashed by the ITAT, all consequential assessment orders based on them became infructuous. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the assessee's appeals.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs LAXMA REDDY KORPOLU, HYDERABAD

ITA 48/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the section 263 orders were quashed by the ITAT, all consequential assessment orders based on them became infructuous. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the assessee's appeals.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL vs NORTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF TELANGANA LIMITED, WARANGAL

ITA 1008/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of tariff subsidy should be deleted if it's not a difference between sanctioned and paid amounts. The CSR expense issue was restored for verification. The consumer contribution amortization was restored for verification based on previous years' orders. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow carry forward of losses was upheld.

GARUDAPALLY SHRUTHI GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 11/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable. It found that the satisfaction note was not year-specific, the seized documents were 'dumb' without clear particulars, and evidence lacked the necessary Section 65B certificate for electronic records.

GARUDAPALLY SHRUTHI GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 10/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable. It found that the satisfaction note was not year-specific, the seized documents were 'dumb' without clear particulars, and evidence lacked the necessary Section 65B certificate for electronic records.

TRICITIES SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 14/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable. It found that the satisfaction note was not year-specific, the seized documents were 'dumb' without clear particulars, and evidence lacked the necessary Section 65B certificate for electronic records.

SANJAY GARUDAPALLY,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 12/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable. It found that the satisfaction note was not year-specific, the seized documents were 'dumb' without clear particulars, and evidence lacked the necessary Section 65B certificate for electronic records.

ANIL KUMAR RATHI,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 29/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the format of sales bills does not solely determine the genuineness of cash transactions. The Assessing Officer should have verified the cash balance against other available information like VAT statements.

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs QUISLEX LEGAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 6/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Feb 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict interest at LIBOR + 200 basis points and allow a credit period of 60 days. They found no documentary evidence to support a longer credit period.

UNION PETROL SERVICE,HYDERABAD vs ITO., WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 583/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's failure to appear before lower authorities, decided to grant one more opportunity due to the peculiar facts. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

SRI RAMACHANDRA MURTHY BADARLA,SECUNDERABAD vs DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 650/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for one last opportunity to the assessee to present evidence. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) without seeking adjournments.

JOTHEE SYNDICATE,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 262/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing that the assessee be given an opportunity to reconcile the differences in collections with supporting evidence. This decision was based on a similar precedent from a co-ordinate bench.

MOOLA PADMAJA,HYDERABAD vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 234/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be cancelled solely for the reason that the notice did not specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when the assessee understood the notice and had an opportunity to present their case. The appeals were dismissed.

VINOD AERUKALA,HYDERABAD vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 235/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be cancelled solely for the reason that the notice did not specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when the assessee understood the notice and had an opportunity to present their case. The appeals were dismissed.

M/S. BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs DCIT CIRCLE -17(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 365/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating equity investments as interest-free loans and charging interest. It also directed that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A calculations.

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYD, HYDERABAD vs LYCOS INTERNET LTD (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED), HYDERABAD

ITA 480/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP was justified in directing the AO to deduct communication expenses from both total turnover and export turnover for Section 10A calculations. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments on investments, following its earlier decision.

M/S. BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 451/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP was justified in directing the AO to deduct communication expenses from both total turnover and export turnover for Section 10A calculations. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments on investments, following its earlier decision.

RAMESH BABU SEGU,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 2295/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to present their case after proper notice at their correct address.

RAMESH BABU SEGU,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 2294/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to present their case after proper notice at their correct address.

M/S. BRIGHTCOM GROUP LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs DCIT CIRCLE -16(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 118/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2023AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP was justified in directing the AO to deduct communication expenses from both total turnover and export turnover for Section 10A calculations. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments on investments, following its earlier decision.

COMMUNITY PURE WATER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 91/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed remittance of employee PF & ESI contributions is sustainable, even if remitted before filing the return. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is retrospective and applies to the current situation.

COMMUNITY PURE WATER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO,WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 90/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2023AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed remittance of employee's PF & ESI contributions is sustainable, even if remitted before filing the return of income. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is retrospective and applies to the current assessment years.

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL KISHAN,USA vs ADIT, (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

ITA 94/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted a last opportunity to submit material and prosecute the case diligently.

AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,ADILABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 600/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2023AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's explanation and the impact of the COVID-19 period on limitations. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

GEM MOTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 93/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that belated deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESI is not allowable under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provisions of Section 43B do not apply to Section 36(1)(va) in this regard.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs E CENTRIC SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 707/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to be heard and without considering his objections. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer/TPO for a fresh decision.

BHARATHI CEMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 159/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the rate charged by the Electricity Board to industrial consumers should be used as a benchmark for determining the arm's length price of electricity supplied by the captive power plant. Consequently, the assessee was allowed the deduction under Section 80-IA.

NOORUNNISA BEGUM,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 89/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present her case and substantiate her claim of inheritance.

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs DCIT, CIRCLE -1, KURNOOL

ITA 132/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the TPO/DRP, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) and analyze the transactions afresh under Transfer Pricing provisions.

ZUARI CEMENT LIMITED,KADAPA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

ITA 249/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the TPO/DRP, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) and analyze the transactions afresh under Transfer Pricing provisions.

ANJANEYA RAVI VARMA PRASAD KANTHATE,HYDERABAD vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 142/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Feb 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence, considering the pandemic situation and potential lack of adequate hearing opportunities.

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 364/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed13 Feb 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. It found that the reasons provided for the delay were vague and did not constitute a reasonable cause, especially considering the society had other office bearers who could have filed the appeal. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of timely filing and the lack of sufficient explanation for the delay.

PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs ACIT (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 561/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Feb 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 11(6) is prospective and applies to assets acquired from AY 2015-16 onwards. Depreciation on assets acquired prior to this date, even if their cost was claimed as application of income, should be allowed.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs SRI VEMIREDDY PRABHAKAR REDDY, NELLORE

ITA 748/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Feb 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument that the CIT(A) did not consider the prior assessment year's treatment of the credit balance. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs ANJANEYA RAVI VARMA PRASAD KANTHATE, HYDERABAD

ITA 141/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence, considering the pandemic situation and potential lack of adequate hearing opportunities.

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 360/HYD/2022[2010-11]Status: Disposed13 Feb 2023AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. It found that the reasons provided for the delay were vague and did not constitute a reasonable cause, especially considering the society had other office bearers who could have filed the appeal. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of timely filing and the lack of sufficient explanation for the delay.

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 361/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed13 Feb 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. It found that the reasons provided for the delay were vague and did not constitute a reasonable cause, especially considering the society had other office bearers who could have filed the appeal. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of timely filing and the lack of sufficient explanation for the delay.

VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 362/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. It found that the reasons provided for the delay were vague and did not constitute a reasonable cause, especially considering the society had other office bearers who could have filed the appeal. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of timely filing and the lack of sufficient explanation for the delay.

ITO WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD vs VISWABHARATI MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 363/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Feb 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. It found that the reasons provided for the delay were vague and did not constitute a reasonable cause, especially considering the society had other office bearers who could have filed the appeal. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of timely filing and the lack of sufficient explanation for the delay.