ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — July 2023

The Tribunal held that expenditure on scientific research, including clinical studies for drugs and pharmaceuticals, incurred outside the approved facility is eligible for deduction under Section 35(2AB). It also held that belated filing of Form 67 does not disentitle the assessee from claiming FTC as the provision is directory, not mandatory.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the facts and evidence before granting relief. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the facts and evidence before granting relief. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the facts and evidence before granting relief. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that a fresh claim for deduction under Section 80IA cannot be made for the first time in a return filed in response to a notice under Section 153A, especially when the original assessment was unabated. The assessee must fulfill the conditions for claiming the deduction on or before the due date of filing the original return.

The Tribunal held that a fresh claim for deduction under Section 80IA cannot be made for the first time in a return filed in response to a notice under Section 153A, especially when the original assessment was unabated. The assessee must fulfill the conditions for claiming the deduction on or before the due date of filing the original return.

The Tribunal held that a fresh claim for deduction under Section 80IA cannot be made for the first time in a return filed in response to a notice under Section 153A, especially when the original assessment was unabated. The assessee must fulfill the conditions for claiming the deduction on or before the due date of filing the original return.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their claim of agricultural income. The assessee is directed to appear and provide necessary details.

The Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice to allow the assessee an opportunity to produce all available evidence to justify its claim. Technicalities should not stand in the way of substantial justice.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their claim of agricultural income. The assessee is directed to appear and provide necessary details.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act as it was not decided on merits. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the AO had failed to make sufficient inquiries into crucial issues such as share valuation, loan sources, and cash transactions, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Consequently, the PCIT's order to set aside the assessment was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the facts and evidence before granting relief. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during a search, a concluded assessment cannot be disturbed under section 153A. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that a fresh claim for deduction under Section 80IA cannot be made for the first time in a return filed in response to a notice under Section 153A, especially when the original assessment was unabated. The assessee must fulfill the conditions for claiming the deduction on or before the due date of filing the original return.

The Tribunal held that substantial investment made in the new property, even if the sale deed was executed later or the property was under construction, satisfies the conditions for exemption under Section 54F. The purpose of the section is to encourage replacement of a house, and strict legalism should not impede this.

The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted similar LTCG claims in a preceding assessment year without making additions. However, the assessee could not provide clarity on whether any proceedings under Section 147 or 263 were initiated for that year concerning the same issue. The Tribunal also observed that the outcome of similar claims by family members was not discussed in the lower authorities' orders.

The Tribunal held that the explanation for the delay was insufficient and relied on a Supreme Court judgment where a similar condonation petition was dismissed. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the condonation application.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present its case by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for one final opportunity to substantiate its case.

The Tribunal held that while the WhatsApp document had evidentiary value regarding the interest charged, it also indicated a partial payment of interest. Therefore, the addition should be restricted to the amount of interest that was not accounted for in the books and not paid.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's additional evidence, finding it undated and self-serving. It held that the sale deed dated 11.12.2008, which explicitly mentions the handover of possession, correctly determined the year of transfer.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's additional evidence, finding it undated and self-serving. It held that the sale deed dated 11.12.2008, which explicitly mentions the handover of possession, correctly determined the year of transfer.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's application for additional evidence, finding it was not supported by a reasonable cause for delay. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' view that the sale deed and possession handover on 11.12.2008 constituted the transfer for capital gains purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the condonation petition for the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delay and that merely being busy with other litigation is not a sufficient ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the condonation petition for the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delay and that merely being busy with other litigation is not a sufficient ground.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of notice to the assessee before rejecting their transfer pricing study and adopting new comparables was mandatory. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of interest on delayed receivables was covered by previous orders in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee a final opportunity to provide evidence and reconcile the interest income and substantiate the agricultural income.

The Tribunal found that the construction was not complete at the time of registration and that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not verify the actual sale consideration received during the financial year. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry.

The Tribunal dismissed the condonation petition for the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delay and that merely being busy with other litigation is not a sufficient ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the condonation petition for the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delay and that merely being busy with other litigation is not a sufficient ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the condonation petition for the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delay and that merely being busy with other litigation is not a sufficient ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the condonation petition for the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delay and that merely being busy with other litigation is not a sufficient ground.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate her case, emphasizing the interest of justice. The assessee was directed to participate without adjournment.

The Tribunal, following its own coordinate bench's decision for a prior assessment year in the assessee's own case, decided to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer/TPO. The AO/TPO is directed to consider the RPM as the most appropriate method and re-evaluate the necessity of any adjustment for the distribution function.

The Tribunal held that the assessee accepted cash exceeding Rs. 20,000, violating Section 269SS, and the penalty under Section 271D is therefore justified. The assessee's claim of a prior sub-agreement was found to be fabricated.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, a concluded assessment cannot be disturbed under section 153A. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) cannot be upheld.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to this request. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal application.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed additional evidence and requested a remand. The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, remanding the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce any evidence before any of the authorities to support his contentions regarding the source of license fee payments. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed additional evidence and requested a remand. The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, remanding the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's contention regarding pandemic-related difficulties in furnishing documents and the Supreme Court's exclusion of time limits. It restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that filing of the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income is a mandatory condition for claiming deduction under Section 10AA. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee failed to provide the required report within the stipulated time, making the deduction inadmissible.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional powers under Section 263 if the assessment order is silent on penalty. Penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and cannot be revived if barred by limitation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted one last opportunity to present their case, with a strict warning against seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal confirmed an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- while deleting Rs. 57,000/- from the amount previously confirmed by the CIT(A). This was based on the principle that while the onus is on the assessee to prove savings, a homemaker might have some unexplained savings for daily needs.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional powers under Section 263 if the assessment order is silent on penalty. Penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and cannot be revived if barred by limitation.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case with documentary evidence. A cost of Rs. 5000 was levied on the assessee for his callous attitude.

The tribunal noted the assessee's intention to settle the matter under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following a similar decision in the Revenue's appeal for the same assessment year. This was done to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case with requisite details.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking in proper consideration of the AO's points, especially regarding the acceptance of additional evidence without remand. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking order after giving due opportunity to both parties.