ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — January 2024

The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 to a deceased person is a nullity. Consequently, the assessment order and any demand raised based on such a notice are invalid and must be quashed.

The Tribunal held that a portion of the payment made by the assessee to the sub-contractor, identified as commission for illegal gratification, was to be sustained. However, another portion of the payment, related to extra quantities and departmental expenditure, was deleted.

The Tribunal held that no fresh incriminating material was found during the search to justify the addition. The addition was based on material already examined during a prior survey and assessment, and the MD's statement was not a valid basis for fresh addition under Section 153A without new evidence.

The Tribunal held that while filing returns is mandatory, the additional evidence (audited financials, TDS certificates) filed by the assessee during appeal should have been considered. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while filing returns is mandatory, the additional evidence (audited financials, TDS certificates) filed by the assessee during appeal should have been considered. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea for an opportunity to be heard and the fact that additions were made, decided to give the assessee one more chance. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification and assessment.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 153A was invalid as no incriminating material was found during the assessee's search. Furthermore, since the material was found during a separate search of a third party, proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, considering new evidence (loan agreements) not previously examined by the lower authorities. The Tribunal acknowledged that these agreements could be crucial to the matter.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). Regarding the eligibility for exemption under Section 11, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that claims made through revised computations are not fatal. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Kedarnath Jute Mills, stating that entitlement to a deduction depends on the law, not on entries in books of account. The Tribunal also cited Pruthi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd, holding that appellate authorities have the jurisdiction to consider additional claims raised before them. On the issue of Section 13(1)(c), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already found no violation, supported by the AO's remand report. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 11 and dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that a portion of the payment made by the assessee to the sub-contractor, identified as commission for illegal gratification, was to be sustained. However, another portion of the payment, related to extra quantities and departmental expenditure, was deleted.

The Tribunal held that a portion of the payment made by the assessee to the sub-contractor, identified as commission for illegal gratification, was to be sustained. However, another portion of the payment, related to extra quantities and departmental expenditure, was deleted.

The Tribunal held that a portion of the payment made by the assessee to the sub-contractor, identified as commission for illegal gratification, was to be sustained. However, another portion of the payment, related to extra quantities and departmental expenditure, was deleted.

The Tribunal held that a portion of the payment made by the assessee to the sub-contractor, identified as commission for illegal gratification, was to be sustained. However, another portion of the payment, related to extra quantities and departmental expenditure, was deleted.

The Tribunal held that a portion of the payment made by the assessee to the sub-contractor, identified as commission for illegal gratification, was to be sustained. However, another portion of the payment, related to extra quantities and departmental expenditure, was deleted.

The Tribunal held that a portion of the payment made by the assessee to the sub-contractor, identified as commission for illegal gratification, was to be sustained. However, another portion of the payment, related to extra quantities and departmental expenditure, was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) took a pedantic view on the delay and should have condoned it. The case was restored to the CIT(A) to grant an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claims.

The Tribunal held that while filing returns is mandatory, the additional evidence (audited financials, TDS certificates) filed by the assessee during appeal should have been considered. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot adopt inconsistent treatment for foreign exchange gains/losses to its benefit. The TPO's failure to consider the consistent accounting treatment by auditors made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity of being heard in the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification and assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated the source of cash withdrawals to the extent of Rs. 10,61,000/-. However, the sources for the remaining amount remained unexplained, leading to a partial confirmation of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing and examining documents.

The Tribunal held that technicalities should not stand in the way of substantial justice. It set aside the ex-parte orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that technicalities should not stand in the way of substantial justice. It set aside the ex-parte orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that technicalities should not stand in the way of substantial justice. It set aside the ex-parte orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that technicalities should not stand in the way of substantial justice. It set aside the ex-parte orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was indeed involved in the sale of tiles, as evidenced by a counter-affidavit. However, the absence of sales bills and GST details meant the source was not fully substantiated.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing and considering all documents.

The Tribunal held that technicalities should not stand in the way of substantial justice. It set aside the ex-parte orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee satisfactorily explained Rs. 7,40,000 of the cash deposits. However, the remaining amount of Rs. 3,80,000 was not adequately accounted for, leading to a partial confirmation of the addition.

The Tribunal found that although the CIT(A) had provided opportunities, the assessee could not appear. Considering the additions made by the AO and the submissions, the assessee was granted one more opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the payment of GST by the assessee is a significant factor indicating the nature of the services as consultancy. The issue of whether Mr. Burchell was a dependent or independent service provider needs to be decided considering the totality of facts, including the GST payment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing Supreme Court directions regarding limitation periods during the pandemic. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's explanation regarding cash withdrawals from gold loans and subsequent redeposits. The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalized solely for not furnishing evidence at the assessment stage and that the CIT(A) should have made further inquiries.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was unsustainable as it was not based on a valuation report. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to obtain a report from the Valuation Officer and pass a fresh order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the assessee's reasons for the delay implausible and not in line with the conduct of a prudent person. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely appeals for finality in tax administration.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed against a deceased person is invalid. To meet the ends of justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed against a deceased person is invalid. To meet the ends of justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities, particularly the CIT(A), failed to pass a detailed speaking order and did not consider the assessee's contentions. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without discussing or deciding the merits of the assessee's appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a condition. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to consider the evidence filed by the assessee and decide the appeal afresh.

The Tribunal held that while the entire deposit could not be added as unexplained income, a reasonable estimation of profit should be considered. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 15% of the total cash deposits as business income.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case with necessary documents, considering the interest of justice. The assessee was directed to participate without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case. The assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present her case and submit evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her onus regarding the cash deposits by demonstrating withdrawal from a partnership firm and subsequent deposit into her bank account on the same dates. However, the grounds related to house property income were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) is applicable to the facts of the case, deeming the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income despite declaring it in the return filed post-search.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case with documentary evidence. The assessee was directed to appear and file necessary documents without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be assessed as an AOP and is entitled to deduct admissible expenses from gross receipts. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to tax only the net income after allowing deductions.

The Tribunal held that the property was predominantly used for religious purposes (Mosque, Orphanage School, Staff Quarters) and not as a residential house as contemplated under Section 54F. It also noted the lack of provision for pro-rata deduction.

The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 43B is only admissible if the deposit is made before the due date as per the parent Act. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. is binding, overriding previous tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be assessed as an AOP and is entitled to deduct admissible expenses from gross receipts. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to tax only the net income after allowing deductions.