ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's addition, finding that the assessee had traded in a penny stock company with the intention of generating bogus LTCG to convert cash. The non-production of summoned persons led to the inference that the assessee routed their own money.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's addition, finding that the assessee had traded in a penny stock company with the intention of generating bogus LTCG to convert cash. The non-production of summoned persons led to the inference that the assessee routed their own money.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's plea regarding cash withdrawals being linked to card swiping activity and commission. The disallowance of cash expenses also requires reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted merely as a facilitator for the transaction, as evidenced by the immediate transfer of funds to relatives after deposit. The Tribunal was satisfied with the proof of relationship and the context of the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s logic for dismissing the appeal due to delay was flawed. It found that the assessee had sufficient cash from business receipts to cover the credit card payments and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs related to the withdrawal from the partnership firm, finding the source to be proved. However, it upheld the additions of Rs. 2,41,000/- (gift from father) and Rs. 65,200/- (cash on hand) due to lack of sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal of transfer pricing grounds pertaining to both US and UK entities. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not claim a higher agricultural income than what was originally declared without filing a revised return. However, considering the CIT(A)'s partial relief and the peculiar circumstances, additional relief was granted.

The Tribunal held that filing a second appeal for the same relief against the same order, when a substantial appeal has already been filed and numbered, is not maintainable. Therefore, the present appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash balance from the previous year to explain the deposits, and that bank statements and LIC receipts sufficiently evidenced the claim under Section 80C. Therefore, the additions and disallowance were not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately examined the terms of the concession agreement to determine if the toll collected was a revenue or capital receipt. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately examined the terms of the concession agreement to determine if the toll collected was a revenue or capital receipt. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately examined the terms of the concession agreement to determine if the toll collected was a revenue or capital receipt. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately examined the terms of the concession agreement to determine if the toll collected was a revenue or capital receipt. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately examined the terms of the concession agreement to determine if the toll collected was a revenue or capital receipt. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the subsequent development agreement in 2016, which superseded the earlier one and involved a new developer with different terms, did not amount to a transfer of land under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A)'s decision to grant relief was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made under Section 45 and in allowing exemption under Section 47(xiii) without sufficient evidence. The partnership deed was not registered, and its validity for the claim was questionable.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of 50% of the swimming pool land rent, finding a personal element. It also upheld the disallowance of Rs. 50,000 under Section 14A as fair and reasonable, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s reasoning.

The Tribunal held that the subsequent development agreement in 2016, which superseded the earlier one and involved a new developer with different terms, did not amount to a transfer of land under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A)'s decision to grant relief was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the possession of the land was handed over in 2007 under the first JDA, and the second JDA in 2016 was a continuation. Therefore, no capital gains arose in AY 2016-17. The reopening of assessment was found to be based on incorrect facts.

The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt a net profit of 6% of gross sales, considering the nature of the business and the lack of conclusive evidence from either side. It also held that the deposit of Rs. 6,97,000 in specified notes should not be taxed separately as it was part of cash sales.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made under Section 45 and in allowing exemption under Section 47(xiii) without sufficient evidence. The partnership deed was not registered, and its validity for the claim was questionable.