ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — August 2023

The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO failed to verify the sale of immovable property, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. was cited.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee demonstrated the availability of cash from earlier withdrawals by her husband, and the Revenue accepted similar transactions for the husband, the addition in the assessee's hands was unjustified. The Tribunal found no reason to make the addition as the assessee, being an NRI, had no other source for such cash utilization.

The Tribunal held that for deduction under Section 80IA(4), the agreement must be directly between the assessee and the government/statutory body. Since the agreement was with the JV, not the assessee directly, the deduction was not allowable, following the Supreme Court's strict interpretation of exemption clauses.

The Tribunal directed the inclusion of certain comparables and exclusion of others in the transfer pricing analysis. It also held that outstanding receivables constitute an international transaction and directed the computation of notional interest at 6% on receivables outstanding for more than 30 days.

The Tribunal directed the inclusion of certain comparables and exclusion of others in the transfer pricing analysis. It also held that outstanding receivables constitute an international transaction and directed the computation of notional interest at 6% on receivables outstanding for more than 30 days.

The Tribunal held that for deduction under Section 80IA(4), the agreement must be directly between the assessee and the government/statutory body. Since the agreement was with the JV, not the assessee directly, the deduction was not allowable, following the Supreme Court's strict interpretation of exemption clauses.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to partly delete additions made under Section 40(a)(ia) and Section 68. The CIT(A) had considered additional evidence and a remand report before granting partial relief.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the exclusion of Cera Sanitaryware Ltd. from the list of comparables while upholding the inclusion of HSIL Ltd. The Tribunal also directed the TPO to give effect to the DRP's directions regarding Murudeshwar Ceramics and restored an issue concerning the aggregation of transactions to the AO/TPO.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee having accepted a resolution arrived at under Article 27 of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the exclusion of Cera Sanitaryware Ltd. from the list of comparables while upholding the inclusion of HSIL Ltd. The Tribunal also directed the TPO to give effect to the DRP's directions regarding Murudeshwar Ceramics and restored an issue concerning the aggregation of transactions to the AO/TPO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's explanations regarding the accounting method. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the IT Act due to the assessee's non-compliance. The property was sold for a consideration significantly lower than its SRO value, indicating potential escapement of capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80G for CSR contributions if the donee satisfies the conditions of Section 80G, as there is no implied prohibition for such claims when specific exceptions are provided in the Act.

The Tribunal held that for issuing a notice under Section 153A for a year beyond the six-year period, the Assessing Officer must possess books of account, documents, or evidence revealing income escaping assessment in the form of an asset. Since no such tangible material was found during the search, the addition made under Section 153A was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 should not lead to the disallowance of foreign tax credit. Following its own precedent, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the foreign tax paid and grant the credit.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of audit objections are not valid in law. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed, rendering the revenue's appeal on merits academic.

The Tribunal was considering an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the penalty levied under Section 271D. The specific grounds of appeal related to this penalty.

The Tribunal held that since the partnership firm confirmed the payment as the assessee's share of profit from deposits/FSD returned after contract completion, and the payment was through banking channels, the addition under Section 68 was not justified. The assessee cannot be held responsible for the firm's record-keeping after his retirement.

The Tribunal held that for issuing a notice under Section 153A for a year beyond the six-year period, the Assessing Officer must possess books of account, documents, or evidence revealing income escaping assessment in the form of an asset. Since no such tangible material was found during the search, the addition made under Section 153A was deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the additional income could be brought to tax, the provisions of Section 115BBE were not applicable to the entire amount. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, implying that the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE was not justified for the full declared amount.

The Tribunal held that for issuing a notice under Section 153A for a year beyond the six-year period, the Assessing Officer must possess books of account, documents, or evidence revealing income escaping assessment in the form of an asset. Since no such tangible material was found during the search, the addition made under Section 153A was deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the additional income could be brought to tax, the provisions of Section 115BBE were not applicable to the entire amount. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, implying that the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE was not justified for the full declared amount.

The Tribunal held that while the additional income could be brought to tax, the provisions of Section 115BBE were not applicable to the entire amount. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, implying that the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE was not justified for the full declared amount.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of audit objections are not valid in law. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed, rendering the revenue's appeal on merits academic.

The Tribunal held that for issuing a notice under Section 153A for a year beyond the six-year period, the Assessing Officer must possess books of account, documents, or evidence revealing income escaping assessment in the form of an asset. Since no such tangible material was found during the search, the addition made under Section 153A was deleted.

The Tribunal held that outstanding trade receivables from an AE are an international transaction that needs to be benchmarked. It upheld the TPO's approach of applying SBI short-term deposit rates to determine the arm's length interest on such delayed receivables.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable even when income is estimated, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. However, interest income from fixed deposits is to be taxed under 'income from other sources', following earlier ITAT decisions.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable even when income is estimated, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. However, interest income from fixed deposits is to be taxed under 'income from other sources', following earlier ITAT decisions.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable even when income is estimated, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. However, interest income from fixed deposits is to be taxed under 'income from other sources', following earlier ITAT decisions.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable even when income is estimated, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. However, interest income from fixed deposits is to be taxed under 'income from other sources', following earlier ITAT decisions.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable even when income is estimated, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. However, interest income from fixed deposits is to be taxed under 'income from other sources', following earlier ITAT decisions.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable even when income is estimated, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax interest income from fixed deposits as 'income from other sources', following its own previous orders.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable even when income is estimated, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. However, interest income from fixed deposits is to be taxed under 'income from other sources', following earlier ITAT decisions.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A(3) without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to rebut it. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was barred by limitation, as it was passed well beyond the prescribed time limits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the principle of computing capital gains based on the Fair Market Value on the date of conversion is correct. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the assessee had indeed computed the capital gains in this manner before deleting the addition.

The Tribunal held that merely because a claim is not accepted by the Revenue does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The twin conditions for penalty were not satisfied, and the penalty could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that subsequent events, including the confirmation of refunds for AY 2008-09 and 2010-11, justified the assessee's claim. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside due to these changed circumstances.

The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 143(2) is not mandatory when no return of income is filed in response to a notice under Section 148. The assessee's contention that the assessment was bad for want of a Section 143(2) notice and lack of PCIT sanction was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the property was occupied in FY 2004-05, so the cost inflation index for that year should be used. Regarding cost of improvement, a portion was allowed due to lack of evidence but considering common human conduct.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with Section 54 of the Income Tax Act is sufficient for claiming exemption, even if construction is not fully complete within the stipulated period, provided the investment in the new property has been made. For unexplained deposits, a portion was allowed as business income, and the rest was added to income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's investments in group companies were for business requirements and that dividends declared would necessarily be earned. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A was justified, and the CIT(A)'s deletion was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with Section 54 of the Income Tax Act is sufficient for claiming exemption, even if construction is not fully complete within the stipulated period, provided the investment in the new property has been made. For unexplained deposits, a portion was allowed as business income, and the rest was added to income.

The Tribunal held that if the donee institutions are eligible under Section 80G, the deduction for CSR expenditure can be claimed, as there is no explicit prohibition for such claims. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to verify and grant TDS credit for an outstanding amount.

The Tribunal held that foreign assignment allowance received by a non-resident for services rendered outside India, even if transferred from an Indian bank account, is not taxable in India. The situs of employment and accrual of income are considered to be outside India in such cases.

The Tribunal held that if the donee institutions are eligible under Section 80G, the deduction for CSR expenditure can be claimed, as there is no explicit prohibition for such claims. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to verify and grant TDS credit for an outstanding amount.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) did not comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act. It emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities.

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

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be sketchy and non-speaking, failing to address the Assessing Officer's specific objections regarding the validity of the takeover agreement and supporting documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking order.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee, stating that all necessary facts were on record and the ground was purely legal. The appeal was admitted for adjudication.