ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — December 2023

The Tribunal held that earning revenue is not a prerequisite for allowing business expenditure if the business is set up. The authorities below did not properly verify whether the business was set up. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for verification.

The Tribunal held that earning revenue is not a prerequisite for allowing business expenditure if the business is set up. The authorities below did not properly verify whether the business was set up. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for verification.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking proper consideration of evidence, particularly regarding the denial of receipts by the alleged GPA holder and the nature of the land. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not sufficiently address whether the appeal was filed within the time allowed by law and the relevant CBDT circular. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for verification.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO reopened the case based on the incorrect premise that the assessee had not filed her return of income, when in fact, it had been filed and processed. Furthermore, the delay in furnishing the reasons for reopening denied the assessee an opportunity to object.

The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is deductible, even if no income has been generated yet. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for verification of business setup.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the addition of Rs. 6.96 crores on account of unexplained share application money and the disallowance of Rs. 25 lakhs for unsubstantiated expenses. The assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the IT Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was not convincing, as they had received clear advice on challenging the PCIT's order earlier but chose to pursue assessment proceedings first. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer's file, directing him to grant the assessee an opportunity to present its case. The assessee was also directed to appear without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation on goodwill and interest disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee one last opportunity to provide substantiating documents. For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation on goodwill and interest disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee one last opportunity to provide substantiating documents. For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return was due to reasons beyond the assessee's control, including the bifurcation of the state and technical issues with the portal. Since the Assessing Officer accepted the income offered, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act as it was disposed of ex-parte without referring to the facts or merits. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer's file, directing him to grant the assessee an opportunity to present its case. The assessee was also directed to appear without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer's file, directing him to grant the assessee an opportunity to present its case. The assessee was also directed to appear without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer's file, directing him to grant the assessee an opportunity to present its case. The assessee was also directed to appear without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer's file, directing him to grant the assessee an opportunity to present its case. The assessee was also directed to appear without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation on goodwill and interest disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee one last opportunity to provide substantiating documents. For AY 2012-13, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the director whose statement was solely relied upon. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's husband's identical case.

The Tribunal held that the withdrawals made before demonetization and subsequently deposited were sufficiently explained. It also found that the Assessing Officer travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny by disallowing agricultural income without proper verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. While the assessee was a GPA holder, a liberal view was taken, and an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs was deleted from the addition.

The Tribunal held that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, especially when the assessee is educated and has claimed capital gains, implying knowledge of tax provisions. The explanation for cash usage was not substantiated with evidence.

The Tribunal held that a business loss in the eligible business prevents claiming deduction under Section 80-IA, even if there is income from other sources. The CIT(A)'s disallowance of 25% of expenses was partly upheld, and the denial of 80-IA deduction was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that a business loss in the eligible business prevents claiming deduction under Section 80-IA, even if there is income from other sources. The CIT(A)'s disallowance of 25% of expenses was partly upheld, and the denial of 80-IA deduction was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that a business loss in the eligible business prevents claiming deduction under Section 80-IA, even if there is income from other sources. The CIT(A)'s disallowance of 25% of expenses was partly upheld, and the denial of 80-IA deduction was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that a business loss in the eligible business prevents claiming deduction under Section 80-IA, even if there is income from other sources. The CIT(A)'s disallowance of 25% of expenses was partly upheld, and the denial of 80-IA deduction was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that a business loss in the eligible business prevents claiming deduction under Section 80-IA, even if there is income from other sources. The CIT(A)'s disallowance of 25% of expenses was partly upheld, and the denial of 80-IA deduction was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that a business loss in the eligible business prevents claiming deduction under Section 80-IA, even if there is income from other sources. The CIT(A)'s disallowance of 25% of expenses was partly upheld, and the denial of 80-IA deduction was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that a business loss in the eligible business prevents claiming deduction under Section 80-IA, even if there is income from other sources. The CIT(A)'s disallowance of 25% of expenses was partly upheld, and the denial of 80-IA deduction was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that a business loss in the eligible business prevents claiming deduction under Section 80-IA, even if there is income from other sources. The CIT(A)'s disallowance of 25% of expenses was partly upheld, and the denial of 80-IA deduction was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that a business loss in the eligible business prevents claiming deduction under Section 80-IA, even if there is income from other sources. The CIT(A)'s disallowance of 25% of expenses was partly upheld, and the denial of 80-IA deduction was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the bank statements and other documents showing cash withdrawals and subsequent deposits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering all evidence and granting an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the issue of late remittance of ESI/PF is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation, following the Supreme Court's decision in Smifs Securities. It also ruled that the claim for depreciation could be considered even if not made in the original or revised return, due to Explanation 5 to Section 32(1) and CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's technical incompetency and lack of proper guidance, which led to the ex parte decision. It was held that granting an opportunity to the assessee would meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal held that Rs. 5 lakhs deposited on 07/08/2017 was outside the relevant assessment year and should be deleted. It also accepted Rs. 5 lakhs gifted by the father due to supporting evidence and directed deletion of that addition. The remaining Rs. 10 lakhs from grandfathers required further verification.

The Tribunal held that the clarification in the CBDT circular, which restricted the extended due date based on interest liability not exceeding Rs. 1 lakh, created an anomaly. They interpreted the circular in light of the Prannoy Roy judgment, allowing the extended due date if taxes were paid when interest liability was below Rs. 1 lakh.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's avocation and the lack of evidence suggesting intent to defeat demonetization. Considering the interest of justice, an opportunity was granted to the assessee to present his case.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271D cannot be levied without recording satisfaction in the assessment order, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that a specific date mentioned in its previous order was a typographical error. The corrected date is 30th September 2016, as opposed to the erroneously stated 31st August 2016.

The tribunal is modifying its earlier order to add that the cost of Rs. 5000 levied on the assessee for not appearing before lower authorities shall be deposited to the credit of the State Legal Aid Centre.

The Tribunal held that a specific date mentioned in its previous order was a typographical error. The corrected date is 30th September 2016, as opposed to the erroneously stated 31st August 2016.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were not complied with by the lower authorities. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not examined whether the revised return filed with Form 10 could substitute the original return for the purpose of Section 11(2). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that substantial justice requires the appeal to be decided on merits. It directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay if the assessee files a proper application explaining the reason for the delay and then decide the appeal afresh.

The Tribunal held that a penalty cannot be cancelled solely for the non-specification in the notice regarding concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when the assessee understood the notice and replied. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the appeal of the Revenue was allowed.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee demonstrated cash withdrawals prior to demonetization, the fact that the assessee took a fresh loan despite available cash indicated a deviation from prudent financial conduct. Therefore, the addition was restricted.

The Tribunal held that a penalty cannot be cancelled solely for the non-specification in the notice regarding concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when the assessee understood the notice and replied. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the appeal of the Revenue was allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal, finding no infirmity in the application of Section 50C as the assessee failed to provide evidence to controvert the Assessing Officer's findings.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and non-speaking, as it failed to consider crucial documents like the arbitration award and the fact of relinquishment. The CIT(A) also relied on documents not confronted to the AO, violating natural justice.