ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — June 2023

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's medical condition, supported by evidence, and decided to grant one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case before the lower authorities. A cost of Rs. 30,000 was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's medical condition, supported by evidence, and decided to grant one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case before the lower authorities. A cost of Rs. 30,000 was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be sketchy and non-speaking, lacking proper reasoning and evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal cancelled the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeals back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be sketchy and non-speaking, lacking proper reasoning and evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal cancelled the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeals back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be sketchy and non-speaking, lacking proper reasoning and evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal cancelled the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeals back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that foreign assignment allowances received for services rendered outside India, even if transferred from Indian accounts and subject to TDS, are not taxable in India if the accrual and receipt are outside India. The situs of employment being in India is not determinative for taxing income earned abroad.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the circumstances presented.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the circumstances presented.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the circumstances presented.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the circumstances presented.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the circumstances presented.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the circumstances presented.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the circumstances presented.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the circumstances presented.

The Tribunal held that foreign assignment allowances received for services rendered outside India, even if transferred from Indian accounts and subject to TDS, are not taxable in India if the accrual and receipt are outside India. The situs of employment being in India is not determinative for taxing income earned abroad.

The Tribunal held that foreign assignment allowances received for services rendered outside India, even if transferred from Indian accounts and subject to TDS, are not taxable in India if the accrual and receipt are outside India. The situs of employment being in India is not determinative for taxing income earned abroad.

The Tribunal held that foreign assignment allowances received for services rendered outside India, even if transferred from Indian accounts and subject to TDS, are not taxable in India if the accrual and receipt are outside India. The situs of employment being in India is not determinative for taxing income earned abroad.

The Tribunal held that foreign assignment allowances received for services rendered outside India, even if transferred from Indian accounts and subject to TDS, are not taxable in India if the accrual and receipt are outside India. The situs of employment being in India is not determinative for taxing income earned abroad.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be sketchy and non-speaking, lacking proper reasoning and evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal cancelled the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeals back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's medical condition, supported by evidence, and decided to grant one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case before the lower authorities. A cost of Rs. 30,000 was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's medical condition, supported by evidence, and decided to grant one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case before the lower authorities. A cost of Rs. 30,000 was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's medical condition, supported by evidence, and decided to grant one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case before the lower authorities. A cost of Rs. 30,000 was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's medical condition, supported by evidence, and decided to grant one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case before the lower authorities. A cost of Rs. 30,000 was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's medical condition, supported by evidence, and decided to grant one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case before the lower authorities. A cost of Rs. 30,000 was imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not clearly indicate the dates of hearing or service of notices, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not clearly indicate the dates of hearing or service of notices, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not clearly indicate the dates of hearing or service of notices, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not clearly indicate the dates of hearing or service of notices, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not clearly indicate the dates of hearing or service of notices, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not clearly indicate the dates of hearing or service of notices, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked clarity regarding the dates of hearing and service of notices, making it impossible to ascertain if the assessee was given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not clearly indicate the dates of hearing or service of notices, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the agricultural income of Rs. 4 lakhs, considering the practical realities of agricultural operations and the evidence produced. Therefore, no addition was warranted on this count.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer/TPO for verification. The Tribunal also restored the issue of notional interest on advances to the Assessing Officer/TPO for a plausible view.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should not dismiss an appeal in limine for non-prosecution but should decide on merits. The tribunal quashed the orders and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's accounting method for taxes was permissible and that the CIT(A) failed to consider other expenses and the correct treatment of GST. The difference was explained by the inclusion of GST and other incidental expenses.

The Tribunal held that the interest earned on credit balances arising from the society's core business activities retains its character as business income and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The reliance on the Totgars case was distinguished based on the jurisdictional High Court's interpretation.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. This was due to the assessee's lack of awareness of proceedings on the ITBA portal, preventing them from participating effectively.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have waited for the outcome of the appeal against the 143(1) intimation before passing its order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made adequate inquiries and accepted a plausible view presented by the assessee regarding the timing differences in revenue recognition due to the percentage completion method. The PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee provided by the assessee on behalf of its AE is an international transaction. Regarding forex loss allocation, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the TPO's order and dismissed the assessee's contention.

The Tribunal held that once an order has attained finality, an Assessing Officer cannot rectify it through Section 154 if it involves re-visiting a debatable issue or setting aside an order of a superior authority. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal found the assessee's claim of acting as a mediator plausible, considering his regular tax filings. However, due to insufficient evidence, they allowed Rs. 6 lakhs on an estimated basis and confirmed the remaining Rs. 4 lakhs as unexplained.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to produce relevant documents and present their case, considering the assessee's explanation of being an elderly person who may not have received the notices.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not consider all grounds of appeal and that the statement of facts in the impugned order differed from the one in Form 35. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's contentions and the facts of the case, dismissing the appeal without proper adjudication. The CIT(A) did not provide findings on whether the deposits represented business receipts or income.

The Tribunal held that once an amount is treated as unexplained income, it cannot simultaneously be treated as a 'specified sum' for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271D. The penalty was deleted following High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's mistake in selecting the wrong section code should not lead to denial of permanent registration. Both the assessee and the Revenue were at fault for not cross-verifying details earlier.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(b) is for willful default. Despite the assessee filing a response later, the initial non-compliance was considered deliberate and willful, thus upholding the penalty.