ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — September 2023

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's directions regarding limitation periods during the pandemic. It also held that the filing of Form 67 is directory and not mandatory, and that the DTAA overrides the Act, allowing the FTC claim.

The Tribunal, considering the interests of justice and the assessee's plea of not being properly heard, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case, subject to paying costs.

The Tribunal found that the appeal in a similar case was pending before the High Court with substantial questions of law framed. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the additions could not be sustained as the seized documents were 'dumb documents' lacking essential details and that the revenue failed to provide necessary certificates under Section 65B for digital evidence. Therefore, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the additions could not be sustained as the seized documents were 'dumb documents' lacking essential details and that the revenue failed to provide necessary certificates under Section 65B for digital evidence. Therefore, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the additions could not be sustained as the seized documents were 'dumb documents' lacking essential details and that the revenue failed to provide necessary certificates under Section 65B for digital evidence. Therefore, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the additions could not be sustained as the seized documents were 'dumb documents' lacking essential details and that the revenue failed to provide necessary certificates under Section 65B for digital evidence. Therefore, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the additions could not be sustained as the seized documents were 'dumb documents' lacking essential details and that the revenue failed to provide necessary certificates under Section 65B for digital evidence. Therefore, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of capital losses, finding them to be notional and artificially introduced. The conversion of a company to an LLP and the subsequent land transfer were viewed as a colorable device to evade tax.

The Tribunal held that a mere admission of undisclosed income under Section 132(4) is not sufficient for levying penalty under Section 271AAB unless it falls within the defined categories of 'undisclosed income'. Since no incriminating material or specific discrepancies were linked to the surrendered income, the penalty was not sustainable.

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 additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were not upheld.

The Tribunal held that the internal TNMM should be considered for benchmarking ITeS transactions, similar to a previous assessment year. For interest on trade receivables, the Tribunal directed to apply a 6% interest rate on outstanding receivables at the year-end, following its own precedent.

The Tribunal held that a defective notice under Section 274, where inappropriate portions are not struck off, does not automatically invalidate the penalty proceedings unless prejudice is proven. The assessee's explanation for non-filing of return due to financial hardship was not accepted as a valid reason to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal restored the issue of quantification of capital gains to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided along with the appeal for the subsequent assessment year. This was done to ensure a uniform and consistent view across both years.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee, including a rectification deed, needed verification by the Assessing Officer to confirm if payments were made through banking channels. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition without proper examination of evidence and legal provisions. The Tribunal held that cash transactions for immovable property are not permissible under the Act.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified as there was no evidence to prove the seized electronic data belonged to the assessee in his individual capacity. The statement confirming the devices belonged to 'Prathima Group' was noted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition without proper examination of evidence and legal provisions. The Tribunal held that cash transactions for immovable property are not permissible under the Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not merely a GPA Holder but had rights derived from an Agreement of Sale cum GPA, and had received the specified sum in cash. Therefore, the assessee violated Section 269SS read with Section 271D of the Act.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case, considering the assessee's failure to appear and the interest of justice. A cost of Rs. 3000 was levied on the assessee for its callous attitude.

The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity to the assessee to appear before the Assessing Officer. The appeal was remanded back for fresh assessment after affording due opportunity of hearing.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the AO had obtained confirmations directly but failed to bring these details to the assessee's notice, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no illegality or irregularity.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not furnish requisite details to the Assessing Officer and DRP. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, granting one last opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not furnish requisite details to the Assessing Officer and DRP. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, granting one last opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not furnish requisite details to the Assessing Officer and DRP. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, granting one last opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not furnish requisite details to the Assessing Officer and DRP. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, granting one last opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not furnish requisite details to the Assessing Officer and DRP. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, granting one last opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not furnish requisite details to the Assessing Officer and DRP. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, granting one last opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, a commercial entity, had not provided sufficient cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal after losing consequential proceedings. The Tribunal deprecated the assessee's conduct of litigating in stages.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below were not justified in making and sustaining the addition of Rs. 15 lakhs. The receipt of cash as advance for the sale of agricultural land could not be doubted given the sale deed and the assessee's regular filing of returns.

The Tribunal held that while there was a technical violation of Section 269SS, the circumstances presented by the assessee, including the genuine nature of the transaction and the declaration of income, constituted sufficient cause under Section 273B. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for a significant delay in filing the appeal was not genuine and not in the public interest. Following a precedent, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay.

The Tribunal followed its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2015-16. This decision held that interest income derived from deposits in nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P for co-operative societies.

The Tribunal admitted new evidence (bank statements and affidavits) filed by the assessee for the first time. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for verification of these documents and to examine the nature of the assessee's involvement with the wine shops.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and failed to provide necessary documents. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to review the claim of deduction under Section 54F and the applicability of Section 50C.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee, engaged in business, might have had some cash savings for emergencies. Considering the demonetization period and the allowance for certain cash deposits, the Tribunal decided to delete a portion of the addition.

The ITAT held that interest paid on delayed PF/ESI payments is compensatory and deductible under Section 37(1). However, the ITAT did not explicitly rule on the TDS interest claim in the provided excerpt, but the overall result indicates a partial allowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's cash payments were necessitated by business exigencies and the volatile nature of the movie industry, where sellers often insist on immediate cash payments. The Tribunal found no dispute regarding the genuineness of the payments or the identity of the payees.

The Tribunal allowed deletion of Rs. 26,84,153/- under Section 40(a)(ia) based on subsequent evidence. It also directed deletion of the addition under Section 40A(3), finding it unsustainable due to the assessee's bank accounts being attached by government agencies, making cash payments necessary.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was prejudiced in refusing to examine the evidence produced by the assessee, especially considering his advanced age and the fact that the deposit predated demonetization. The Tribunal found the explanation and supporting evidence for the Rs. 4 lakhs deposit to be genuine.

The Tribunal held that due to the introduction of the new faceless procedure, notices might have been missed by the authorized representative, leading to an ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposits, as the opening cash balance was not disputed and the business of finance was also not disputed. The Tribunal agreed that the explanation for one deposit equally explained another.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that cash deposits might be out of sale proceeds and that evidence was not properly considered. The issue of cash deposit was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the source.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening was valid, the addition for bogus purchases should be restricted to 10% of the amount confirmed by the CIT(A), considering that purchases are embedded in sales and closing stock.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening was valid, the addition for bogus purchases should be restricted to 10% of the amount confirmed by the CIT(A), considering that purchases are embedded in sales and closing stock.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening was valid, the addition for bogus purchases should be restricted to 10% of the amount confirmed by the CIT(A), considering that purchases are embedded in sales and closing stock.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening was valid, the addition for bogus purchases should be restricted to 10% of the amount confirmed by the CIT(A), considering that purchases are embedded in sales and closing stock.