ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — March 2023

PASUPARTHY TEXTILES,TIRUPATI vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

ITA 1689/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding sales outside the books, finding no contrary evidence. The assessee failed to appear and present any evidence to challenge the additions.

SIVA JANADHANA VARMA MUPPALA,HYDERABAD vs DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 453/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a deceased person is a nullity. Consequently, any demand raised under such an order cannot be enforced against the Legal Representative.

RAJESH DADU,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 34/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that credit for TDS cannot be allowed if it is not reflected on the Income Tax Portal. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the deduction and deposit of TDS by the buyer.

PASUPARTHY SILKS,TIRUPATI vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1688/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the lower authorities for cash deficit and sales outside the books, finding no substantiating evidence from the assessee. The appeal was decided based on the available record as the assessee did not appear.

KAMINENI HEALTH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 90/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation on a loan is a borrowing cost and allowed it as a deduction. It also directed deletion of disallowance of notional interest on various advances, finding them to be for business purposes or based on running accounts.

HIGHEND PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 2287/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that leasing out property was not an object in the assessee's Memorandum of Association, thus rental income should be taxed under 'Income From House Property'. However, the Tribunal accepted that the assessee had commenced its business activities upon incorporation.

HIGHEND PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 2285/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that leasing out property was not an object in the assessee's Memorandum of Association, thus rental income should be taxed under 'Income From House Property'. However, the Tribunal accepted that the assessee had commenced its business activities upon incorporation.

HIGHEND PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2284/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2023AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that leasing out property was not an object in the assessee's Memorandum of Association, thus rental income should be taxed under 'Income From House Property'. However, the Tribunal accepted that the assessee had commenced its business activities upon incorporation.

HIGHEND PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 2286/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that leasing out property was not an object in the assessee's Memorandum of Association, thus rental income should be taxed under 'Income From House Property'. However, the Tribunal accepted that the assessee had commenced its business activities upon incorporation.

SRI GAYATRI CONSTRUCTION,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1569/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 Mar 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that some of the transactions added under Section 69A were recorded in the books and thus the section was not applicable. The addition under Section 68 related to a credit balance in Amar Singh's account, which was found to be a result of genuine transactions and not un-explained income, and thus ordered to be deleted.

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs KALEESUWARI REFINERY AND INDUSTRY PVT LTD,(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS M/S NATUROL BIOENERGY LTD), HYDERABAD

ITA 614/HYD/2022[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2023AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity under Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 157/HYD/2022[2009-10]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2023AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed a partial benefit of agricultural income by estimating it at Rs. 40,000, treating the balance as income from other sources. For the rental income issue, the Tribunal upheld the addition but limited it to the disallowance under Section 24(b) as the assessee had already offered rental income under the head 'Income from House Property'.

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs NANDITA PATHAK, ASSAM

ITA 586/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2023AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to verify the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

UNILOIDS BIOSCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1699/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a plausible reason for not appearing before the CIT(A) and, in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

SANJAY AWATHARE,MAHARASTRA vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 122/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2023AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to present his case. The assessee must substantiate his claims without seeking further adjournments.

SANJAY AWATHARE,MAHARASTRA vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 120/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to present his case. The assessee must substantiate his claims without seeking further adjournments.

SANJAY AWATHARE,MAHARASTRA vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 121/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to present his case. The assessee must substantiate his claims without seeking further adjournments.

SANJAY AWATHARE,MAHARASTRA vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 123/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2023AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to present his case. The assessee must substantiate his claims without seeking further adjournments.

LIGHT ASSOCIATES MINISTRY OF ST. BARNABA SOCIETY,KHAMMAM vs ITO, (EXEMPTIONS)-3, HYDERABAD

ITA 305/HYD/2021[2010-11`]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2023Remanded

The Tribunal found that the AO's notices and assessment order for AY 2010-11 contained references to AY 2015-16, indicating confusion. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard and submit documents.

UNILOIDS BIO SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 938/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a plausible reason for non-appearance before the CIT(A) and, in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

BHABUT SINGH RAJPUROHIT,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 712/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed24 Mar 2023AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that given his substantial turnover, past income, and audited closing cash balance, the availability of the seized cash should not be doubted. The Tribunal noted that the search occurred on Diwali, making it unbelievable that the assessee would have no cash.

PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN,NARASPUR vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 728/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) as the assessee showed scant regard for statutory notices and did not substantiate their case despite multiple opportunities.

KISHORE KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 729/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while penalty was leviable for the unexplained stock, the quantum of penalty levied was excessive. It directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.

SURYAVATHI GANDIBOINA,PEDDAPALLI vs ACIT., CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

ITA 31/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in obtaining and filing the audit report due to health issues, as supported by documentary evidence. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was not justified.

NARAYANA NINGAREDDYPALLY,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-13(5), HYDERABAD

ITA 74/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to COVID-19 and lack of proper communication. It found that the assessee was not properly served notices by the NFAC, thus remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

BINDU VAYU URJA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1596/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not confronting the additional evidence to the Assessing Officer as required under Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs BINDU VAYU URJA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1683/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not confronting the additional evidence to the Assessing Officer as required under Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

OCHRE MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs ITO, WARD( TDS)-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 119/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the late filing fee under Section 234E could not be charged for the period prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision (Section 200A(1)(c)) was inserted with effect from that date. Therefore, the levy was not maintainable.

VENKATA SATYA PADMANABHA RAJU DATLA,KAKINADA vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 612/HYD/2022[2021-22]Status: Disposed23 Mar 2023AY 2021-22Partly Allowed

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, deleting additions for Rs. 40,000 (donation), Rs. 1,90,000 (car sale), Rs. 2,40,000 (savings), and Rs. 79,690 (expenses). However, the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 was upheld due to lack of evidence.

SUMEET AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs JCIT (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 676/HYD/2022[2021-22]Status: Disposed23 Mar 2023AY 2021-22Partly Allowed

The Tribunal acknowledged that gifts are common during marriages but found the claim of Rs. 20 lakhs to be excessive without cogent evidence. Therefore, the addition was restricted to Rs. 10 lakhs.

VASAMSETTY VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 706/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Mar 2023AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the registered sale deed, which indicated minimal construction, would prevail over a civil engineer's certificate claiming extensive improvements. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to indexation on the cost of improvement for the areas without construction.

INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY HANAMKONDA,WARANGAL vs ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 112/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Mar 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to provide one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case, while imposing a cost of Rs. 5000/- for its inaction. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

SUDHAKAR RAO DONDAPATI,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-13(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 129/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Mar 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) for delayed remittance of employee contributions to PF/ESI is justified. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. mandates timely deposit as a condition for deduction.

DCIT-1, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD vs SYAMA REDDY MALIREDDY, HYDERABAD

ITA 325/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed20 Mar 2023AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal held that the matter needed to be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. This was due to the registration of the sale deed occurring during appellate proceedings and the need to verify the nature of other properties owned by the assessee.

ITW INDIA GRATUITY FUND,GURGAON, HARYANA vs ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 105/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed20 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal, following its own precedent for subsequent assessment years, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to redo the assessment after obtaining a rectified return from the assessee and providing an opportunity for a hearing.

HANUMAN SURYA SAGAR SOMA,WARANGAL vs ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

ITA 115/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the CIT(A). This is subject to a payment of Rs. 5,000 to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.

SABITHA ANAND HOSPITAL,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 597/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the construction period spanned multiple financial years and directed the Assessing Officer to spread the difference in construction cost over those years. The Tribunal also granted a higher discount for material purchase and self-supervision charges.

PONGURU SHARANI,NELLORE vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 72/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed17 Mar 2023AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case, considering the lack of proper opportunity and the need to cross-examine a key witness.

PONGURU SHARANI,NELLORE vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 71/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed17 Mar 2023AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case, considering the lack of proper opportunity and the need to cross-examine a key witness.

ANKIT BISCUITS PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 472/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed17 Mar 2023AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify the statement of the Director regarding the cash kept by his wife. If the Director confirms, the addition will be deleted; otherwise, the AO will decide as per facts and law.

BAL REDDY KANDUNURI,ADILABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 96/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Mar 2023AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file. This was conditional upon the assessee paying costs and was considered the last opportunity for the assessee to present their case on merits.

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 510/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the admission of additional income during the search, coupled with employee statements, established that the earlier returns were incorrect and contained inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) squarely applicable.

BALA TRIPURA SUNDARI MUKKAMALA,BACHPALLE vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1818/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Mar 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal, accepting her explanation for certain postal withdrawals but upholding the addition related to the sale of jewelry due to lack of evidence and violation of Section 40A. For the subsequent assessment year, the Tribunal also partially allowed the appeal, accepting some loan explanations but confirming additions related to jewelry sales and other unexplained deposits.

DREAM LAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,BAGALORE vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 590/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Mar 2023AY 2014-15Remanded