ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — July 2023

SREE KRISHNA AUTOMOTIVES HYDERABAD PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 303/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed20 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that while the assessee had made submissions, they failed to furnish supporting documents. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's explanation and any documents filed, after affording opportunities for hearing.

ITO, HYDERABAD vs MOHD ABID KHAN, HYDERABAD

ITA 140/HYD/2008[2005-06]Status: Disposed20 Jul 2023AY 2005-06Dismissed

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

GURUKRUPA AGRO INDUSTRIES,NIZAMABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NIZAMABAD

ITA 30/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed20 Jul 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the DCB reports and the assessee's submission that non-existence of demand indicates proper payment, allowing the grounds for statistical purposes.

LATE KHANNA KHATOON REP BY L/R NOOR ALAM KHATOON,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 258/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had declared rental income over several years, the entire amount deposited could not be fully explained. Considering the assessee's age and passing, a balance was struck.

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs MAHESHWARI MEGA VENTURES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 366/HYD/2013[2007-08]Status: Disposed19 Jul 2023AY 2007-08Remanded

The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined documents filed during appeal and had not afforded the AO an opportunity to be heard, leading to a non-speaking order.

SAWARMAL,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 545/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the issue is not whether the bank account is part of the books of accounts, but whether the cash deposits are explained. Since the assessee claimed to have maintained books of accounts and provided supporting documents, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

MENZIES BOBBA GROUND HANDLING SERVICES P. LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRLCE-16(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 864/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in rejecting TNMM and applying CUP, especially since no comparable uncontrolled transactions were brought on record. The Tribunal also noted the rule of consistency as the same fees were accepted in preceding and succeeding years.

MENZIES BOBBA GROUND HANDLING SERVICES P. LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRLCE-16(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 863/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed18 Jul 2023AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in rejecting TNMM and applying CUP, especially since no comparable uncontrolled transactions were brought on record. The Tribunal also noted the rule of consistency as the same fees were accepted in preceding and succeeding years.

SURESH KUMAR BACHIRAJU,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICERS,WARD -11(5), HYDERABAD

ITA 497/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry into the genuineness and sources of the large cash expenditures claimed by the assessee for property improvement and commission. Consequently, the PCIT's order setting aside the AO's assessment was justified.

LATE SRI ONGOLE VENKATA KRISHNA MANIKYALA RAO (HUF), REP BY SRI ONGOLE VENKATA SUBBA RAO,ONGOLE vs ACIT, WARD-2, ONGOLE

ITA 315/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's explanation regarding the source of deposits being sale proceeds of agricultural lands. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 305/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to refuse condonation of delay, stating that the assessee, being a company, should have been vigilant and followed up on its application. However, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to decide the pending Section 154 applications within six months.

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 307/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to refuse condonation of delay, stating that the assessee, being a company, should have been vigilant and followed up on its application. However, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to decide the pending Section 154 applications within six months.

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 308/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to refuse condonation of delay, stating that the assessee, being a company, should have been vigilant and followed up on its application. However, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to decide the pending Section 154 applications within six months.

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO (TDS),WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 309/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to refuse condonation of delay, stating that the assessee, being a company, should have been vigilant and followed up on its application. However, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to decide the pending Section 154 applications within six months.

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 304/HYD/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to refuse condonation of delay, stating that the assessee, being a company, should have been vigilant and followed up on its application. However, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to decide the pending Section 154 applications within six months.

SURESH KUMAR BACHIRAJU,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICERS,WARD -11(5), HYDERABAD

ITA 496/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry into the genuineness and sources of the large cash expenditures claimed by the assessee for property improvement and commission. Consequently, the PCIT's order setting aside the AO's assessment was justified.

LATE SRI ONGOLE VENKATA KRISHNA MANIKYALA RAO (HUF) REP BY SRI ONGOLE VENKATA SUBBA RAO,ONGOLE vs ACIT, WARD-2, ONGOLE

ITA 316/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's explanation regarding the source of deposits being sale proceeds of agricultural lands. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 310/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to refuse condonation of delay, stating that the assessee, being a company, should have been vigilant and followed up on its application. However, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to decide the pending Section 154 applications within six months.

SIBY MINING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO (TDS), WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 306/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to refuse condonation of delay, stating that the assessee, being a company, should have been vigilant and followed up on its application. However, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to decide the pending Section 154 applications within six months.

PREMIER POULTRY PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT-5(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 190/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed13 Jul 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

NADIMINTY GANAPATHY SASTRY,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 303/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to inquire into the source of the Rs. 54,30,000/- investment in mutual funds. This lack of inquiry rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, justifying the PCIT's action.

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

ITA 279/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, quashed the CIT(A)'s orders, and restored the matters for fresh consideration. The assessees were directed to pay costs to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.

SAP MEDICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 128/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it failed to investigate the huge cash deposit made in violation of demonetization provisions. The Principal Commissioner was justified in invoking Section 263.

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

ITA 280/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, quashed the CIT(A)'s orders, and restored the matters for fresh consideration. The assessees were directed to pay costs to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.

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

ITA 278/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Jul 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, quashed the CIT(A)'s orders, and restored the matters for fresh consideration. The assessees were directed to pay costs to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.

GANGA MOHAN REDDY GADDAM,NIZAMBAD vs ITO WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

ITA 330/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed5 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's inability to appear and present evidence due to circumstances beyond their control, granted one more opportunity. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh review.

SANDEEP AURANEBADKAR,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 333/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed5 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence, it was also true that the Assessing Officer did not controvert the facts furnished. Considering human conduct and probabilities, the Tribunal decided to delete a portion of the addition.

RAJIV VENKATARAMAN,SECUNDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 174/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed5 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the claim of exempt income is a question of law and should be considered by the appellate authorities as it does not require fresh evidence. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.

NARSING RAO GOWLIKAR,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 329/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed5 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's explanations regarding the cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

BLUOAK AGRO COMMODITIES LIMITED,MEDAK vs ITO, WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 277/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) correctly noted the assessee's non-compliance and the proper service of notices, the CIT(A) failed to dispose of the appeal on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

GOVARDHAN NAIDU GUMMALLA,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 165/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. Therefore, additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) were not upheld.

GOVARDHAN NAIDU GUMMALLA,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 166/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. Therefore, additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) were not upheld.

GOVARDHAN NAIDU GUMMALLA,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 168/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. Therefore, additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) were not upheld.

GOVARDHAN NAIDU GUMMALLA,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 167/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed3 Jul 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. Therefore, additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) were not upheld.