Loading ITAT cases…
1,331 tribunal orders from the Hyderabad bench in 2024.
Showing 40 of 1,331 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not the owner of the toll road structure and therefore not entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. It followed the decisions of the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts, which are binding on the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity to the assessee. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after affording due opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to approach the Tribunal if their case is not accepted under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by discussing the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which were not part of the assessee's appeal against the Section 154 order. The Tribunal expunged these observations from the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to a bonafide belief and reasonable cause, and thus condoned it. The Tribunal further held that filing Form 67 is directory and not mandatory, and since it was filed before the AO/CPC passed the order u/s 143(1), the foreign tax credit should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee explained the source of cash deposits from business receipts and demonstrated no abnormal deviation in sales and deposits, the addition under Section 69A was unwarranted. The mere acceptance of Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) after the demonetization date, if explained by business transactions, should not lead to rejection of the source.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was barred by limitation as it was passed after the prescribed period from the receipt of the original directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel. Consequently, the final assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that capital gains arise in the year of actual realization of sale consideration, not merely upon entering into a JDA without transfer of possession or consideration. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court decision in Excel Industries Limited.
The Tribunal upheld the additions related to cash deposits and capital introduction, finding the assessee's explanations unsatisfactory. However, the addition for the difference in bank balance was deleted as the assessee proved the source. The issue of unsecured loans was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by proving the identity of the parties and establishing the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness. It noted that the amount invested by Shri M. Ramaiah had already been assessed as unexplained investment in his hands, and the amount received from Smt. K. Lakshmi Devi was explained by a loan from her husband.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) confirmed unexplained partners' capital by treating it as fresh capital introduced in the current year, despite the assessee explaining it as a transfer of capital from the erstwhile firm via journal entries upon conversion. The Tribunal also considered the CIT(A)'s finding that the amounts were fresh capital introduced during the year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could explain 50% of the investment from her known sources of income, including opening capital and declared income over several years. Therefore, a portion of the addition was sustained.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause and the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause and the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the issues related to transfer pricing adjustments for technical service fees, sub-license fees, and intra-group service fees to the TPO for verification of documentary evidence regarding the inter-linking of transactions. The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding interest on Masala Bonds at 8.70% and directed the AO to allow credit for excess Dividend Distribution Tax and MAT/TCS.
The Tribunal held that the due dates for filing the return and Form 67 were extended due to the Covid pandemic, and the assessee had complied with these extended dates. Therefore, the denial of FTC was incorrect.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause and the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's petition for withdrawal and, with no objection from the revenue, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and fulfilled the necessary conditions. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's petition for withdrawal and, with no objection from the revenue, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and fulfilled the necessary conditions. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's petition for withdrawal and, with no objection from the revenue, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's petition for withdrawal and, with no objection from the revenue, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue's representative conceded to this request. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to reinstate if the DTVSV scheme resolution was not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to ADS issue expenses because the assessee failed to provide adequate documentary evidence. The ground regarding interest under Section 220(2) was also dismissed as it did not emanate from the Assessing Officer's order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not sincere towards income tax proceedings and did not provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary form. The Revenue representative conceded to this request.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to ADS issue expenses because the assessee failed to provide adequate documentary evidence. The ground regarding interest under Section 220(2) was also dismissed as it did not emanate from the Assessing Officer's order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging that the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A) was due to reasons beyond their control. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the sales agreement was part of a larger MOU, and the assessee had an obligation to bring trade debtors into its books and a right to write them off. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to verify the write-off of bad debts, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's remand report acknowledged the negative cash balance based on documents provided. Since both parties agreed, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's remand report acknowledged the negative cash balance based on documents provided. Since both parties agreed, the appeals were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's remand report acknowledged the negative cash balance based on documents provided. Since both parties agreed, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's non-compliance with the CIT(A)'s notices and the Tribunal's earlier directions, even after multiple opportunities, did not warrant interference with the CIT(A)'s order. The explanation for non-compliance was found to be vague.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made under section 153C without a proper satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer, especially when proceedings against a merged entity were dropped. The Tribunal also noted that a common satisfaction note for multiple assessment years was insufficient.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's remand report acknowledged the negative cash balance based on documents provided. Since both parties agreed, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing a CBDT circular that sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made under section 153C without a proper satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer, especially when proceedings against a merged entity were dropped. The Tribunal also noted that a common satisfaction note for multiple assessment years was insufficient.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a previous co-ordinate bench decision in the case of Sruthi Riedl, where similar facts led to relief for the assessee. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.