ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — January 2024

VIJAY PRAKASH MANTRI,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 621/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed12 Jan 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 14.09 lakhs under Section 69A solely based on deposits during the demonetization period was not sustainable without proper verification. The assessee should be given an opportunity to explain these receipts.

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 32/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed11 Jan 2024AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in estimating the income based on consistent past practice and without relying on fresh evidence. The disallowance of subcontract payments under Section 40A(3) was also not sustained as income was estimated. Business promotion expenses were also allowed as income was estimated.

SEC INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT CIRCLE -3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 431/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed11 Jan 2024AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that liquidated damages paid due to delay in delivery of goods, arising from a contractual relationship, are normal business expenses and not penal in nature. Following the decision in Jamna Auto Industries vs. CIT, such damages are allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act.

SARADA DEVI MADDI,WARANGAL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARAMGAL

ITA 549/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed11 Jan 2024AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a duplicate appeal. Since the assessee did not wish to pursue the appeal and it was not maintainable, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

KMC CONTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs ADDL. CIT, RANGE-2, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1734/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed11 Jan 2024AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in estimating the income based on consistent past practice and without relying on fresh evidence. The disallowance of subcontract payments under Section 40A(3) was also not sustained as income was estimated. Business promotion expenses were also allowed as income was estimated.

VENKATESWARA VARMA GOTTIMUKKALA,HYDERABAD vs ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 566/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed11 Jan 2024AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be genuine and that giving an opportunity to the assessee would be in the interest of justice. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

EDIGA VEERANJANEYULU,KURNOOL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, ADONI, KURNOOL

ITA 583/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed11 Jan 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance that the addition of Rs. 31,17,377/- was made without providing an opportunity to explain. The Tribunal also accepted that the assessee missed e-mailed notices due to unfamiliarity with new procedures.

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1910/HYD/2018[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Jan 2024AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal found that the MoU was unsigned, undated, and unattested, and the vendor was not examined. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to substantiate its case and consider the telescoping benefit.

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1907/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed9 Jan 2024AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the MoU was unsigned, undated, and unattested, and the vendor was not examined. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to substantiate its case and consider the telescoping benefit.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 2049/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed9 Jan 2024AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found that the MoU was unsigned, undated, and unattested, and the vendor was not examined. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to substantiate its case and consider the telescoping benefit.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 2050/HYD/2018[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Jan 2024AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal found that the MoU was unsigned, undated, and unattested, and the vendor was not examined. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to substantiate its case and consider the telescoping benefit.

SANJAY AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), HYDRABAD

ITA 531/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Jan 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal, considering the ex-parte nature of the orders and the assessee's explanation for non-compliance, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to substantiate their case with documentary evidence.

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1909/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed9 Jan 2024AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found that the MoU was unsigned, undated, and unattested, and the vendor was not examined. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to substantiate its case and consider the telescoping benefit.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 2048/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed9 Jan 2024AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found that the MoU was unsigned, undated, and unattested, and the vendor was not examined. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to substantiate its case and consider the telescoping benefit.

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1908/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed9 Jan 2024AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the MoU was unsigned, undated, and unattested, and the vendor was not examined. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for further examination, allowing the assessee to produce evidence and consider the telescoping benefit.

PRIYADARSINI SAI KARANAM,KURNOOL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NANDYAL

ITA 615/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Jan 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient means and a genuine need for the cash (daughter's marriage), the entire addition should be deleted. The CIT(A)'s partial relief was extended to cover the full amount.

VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1906/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed9 Jan 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that the MoU was unsigned, undated, and unattested, and the vendor was not examined. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to substantiate its case and consider the telescoping benefit.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

ITA 2046/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed9 Jan 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found that the MoU was unsigned, undated, and unattested, and the vendor was not examined. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to substantiate its case and consider the telescoping benefit.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs VARSHA VISWANATH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

ITA 2047/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed9 Jan 2024AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the MoU was unsigned, undated, and unattested, and the vendor was not examined. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to substantiate its case and consider the telescoping benefit.

GOLDSTONE INFRA,RAJENDRANAGARA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8 (2), HYDERABAD

ITA 570/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed5 Jan 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has the power to admit additional evidence and that it would be in the interest of justice to remand the matter. The CIT(A) should pass a fresh order after admitting the additional evidence and granting an opportunity of hearing.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

ITA 376/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: Heard5 Jan 2024AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee from the JDA should be treated as long-term capital gains, not business income. However, the entitlement to deduction under Section 54F was not decided and was remanded.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs MS AGARWAL FOUNDRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1063/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Jan 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal noted that M/s. Shri Kamal Fashion (P) Ltd. had settled its dues under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and paid taxes on the amount invested. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

VENKATA REDDY CHALLA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 612/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed2 Jan 2024AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal addressed grounds 2 to 5 together. It noted that the Assessing Officer calculated the assessee's share based on the built-up area and the estimated value of Rs. 1,80,99,000/- mentioned in the registered Joint Development Agreement (JDA). The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Potla Nageswara Rao Vs. DCIT and the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini, held that when a JDA is registered, the date of transfer is the date of registration, and capital gains arise on that date. The Tribunal found that the registered JDA provided the assessee's share in the built-up area and the estimated property value. It stated that the contents of registered documents are to be given precedence unless rebutted by contemporaneous evidence, and no such evidence was brought to its notice. Therefore, the grounds related to the valuation of the property were dismissed. Regarding Ground No. 6, concerning the deduction under Section 54F, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had not claimed this deduction at the time of filing the return or before the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal found that there was no impediment to entertaining this claim before the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act. Consequently, the issue of entitlement to deduction under Section 54F was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for examination, with a direction to grant the deduction if all conditions were fulfilled after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing and considering any documents filed.

RAVI KUMAR REDDY KATARU,HYDERABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 565/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Jan 2024AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation, considering his substantial income and the probability of holding cash for expenses and emergencies. The Tribunal found it not suspicious for a man of means to possess such an amount, especially given healthcare costs.