ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — March 2024

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that the ground regarding the denial of Section 80G deduction had attained finality in the previous round of litigation and could not be raised again. The validity of reopening the assessment was also upheld.

The tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction of overdue interest on unrecoverable loans was not considered by the AO. The AO disallowed this amount, viewing it as an unallowable expenditure.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that the ground regarding the denial of Section 80G deduction had attained finality in the previous round of litigation and could not be raised again. The validity of reopening the assessment was also upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Arm's Length Price (ALP) should be determined only for international transactions. The matter was remanded back to the TPO for a fresh examination to determine if the adjustments made with respect to domestic services were sustainable in law.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that the ground regarding the denial of Section 80G deduction had attained finality in the previous round of litigation and could not be raised again. The validity of reopening the assessment was also upheld.

The Tribunal held that if PF contributions are deposited before the due date under the PF Act, they are allowable as a deduction. The matter was remanded to the AO to verify the deposit dates.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that the ground regarding the denial of Section 80G deduction had attained finality in the previous round of litigation and could not be raised again. The validity of reopening the assessment was also upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) because the assessee's conduct, including withdrawing the exemption claim via affidavit and then not offering the income to tax, indicated a deliberate attempt to evade tax. The transactions were deemed sham and not genuine.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that the ground regarding the denial of Section 80G deduction had attained finality in the previous round of litigation and could not be raised again. The validity of reopening the assessment was also upheld.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to present her case, emphasizing the interest of justice. The assessee was directed to file submissions without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiries and obtained necessary documents, including sale deeds and construction details. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous, and the revision order under Section 263 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's alternative argument that some amounts were received as loans or were refunded due to cancelled transactions. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the lack of a road permit does not disentitle the assessee from claiming full depreciation if the vehicle was put to use. For the remuneration issue, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not properly interpret the partnership deed and granted an opportunity for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the lack of a road permit does not disentitle the assessee from claiming full depreciation if the vehicle was put to use. For the remuneration issue, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not properly interpret the partnership deed and granted an opportunity for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the lack of a road permit does not disentitle the assessee from claiming full depreciation if the vehicle was put to use. For the remuneration issue, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not properly interpret the partnership deed and granted an opportunity for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on deposits of its own funds in nationalized banks by a co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the source of funds.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to technical reasons. It noted that the DRP did not decide the merits of the case, despite a remand report being called for and submitted. The Tribunal found it important to verify the year of transfer and the assessee's involvement in the transaction.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to cooperate and the Assessing Officer was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete an amount of Rs. 22,14,233/- representing deductions from bills, while sustaining the balance amount of Rs. 46,32,871/- that could not be explained. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits was unreasonable. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete an amount of Rs. 22,14,233/- representing deductions from bills, while sustaining the balance amount of Rs. 46,32,871/- that could not be explained. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide details to the revenue authorities, leading to ex-parte orders. Given the assessee's readiness to produce evidence and the potential for a decision on merits, a fresh opportunity was granted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits but dismissed it for want of prosecution without adhering to the procedural requirements of Section 250(6). Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on delayed TDS is not compensatory but penal and thus not allowable as a deduction. It also confirmed the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS on software maintenance charges as the assessee admitted to the mistake.

The Tribunal held that the land in question was not agricultural land. It reasoned that while Pahani entries indicated cultivation, no evidence of actual cultivation, crops grown, sale of crops, or agricultural income was produced. The assessee, being a retired government servant, was unlikely to have personally carried out agricultural activities. The Tribunal also noted that the land was situated within municipal limits, which, according to Section 2(14)(iii)(a), disqualifies it from being agricultural land for the purpose of capital gains exemption. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the transfer of property, including the handing over of possession, occurred on 11.12.2008, as evidenced by the registered sale deed and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The argument that possession was handed over earlier on 04.02.2008 was rejected as the Developer, a signatory to the sale deed, could not issue a contrary document. Consequently, the capital gains were held to be taxable in AY 2009-10. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the assessees' contentions regarding the agricultural nature of the land and the timing of the transfer. The issue regarding Section 54F was not explicitly decided but was implicitly rejected by dismissing the appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal regarding late remittance of PF/ESI, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The appeal concerning interest on loans to sister concerns was dismissed as the assessee did not appeal the partial relief granted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the land in question was not agricultural land. It reasoned that while Pahani entries indicated cultivation, no evidence of actual cultivation, crops grown, sale of crops, or agricultural income was produced. The assessee, being a retired government servant, was unlikely to have personally carried out agricultural activities. The Tribunal also noted that the land was situated within municipal limits, which, according to Section 2(14)(iii)(a), disqualifies it from being agricultural land for the purpose of capital gains exemption. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the transfer of property, including the handing over of possession, occurred on 11.12.2008, as evidenced by the registered sale deed and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The argument that possession was handed over earlier on 04.02.2008 was rejected as the Developer, a signatory to the sale deed, could not issue a contrary document. Consequently, the capital gains were held to be taxable in AY 2009-10. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the assessees' contentions regarding the agricultural nature of the land and the timing of the transfer. The issue regarding Section 54F was not explicitly decided but was implicitly rejected by dismissing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not properly filed as per the ITAT Rules and Section 253 of the Income Tax Act. Since the defects were not removed by the assessee, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that notional interest on advances to sister concern is not taxable if the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds. However, the disallowance of employees' PF contribution was upheld following a Supreme Court decision. Interest on delayed TDS filing was also disallowed. The issue of interest on fixed deposits was remanded for verification.

The Tribunal found that the PF/ESI deposit dates might have been a typographical error and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for verification. Similarly, the nature of the GST refund required verification of the assessee's books of accounts.

The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking in appreciation of the assessee's submissions and evidence. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer failed to consider certain banking channel receipts and the assessee's opening cash balance, a portion of the deposits remained unexplained. Therefore, the addition was partly confirmed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was erroneous as it did not follow a previous ITAT order that had quashed the Section 263 notice. The CIT(A) also relied on facts from an unrelated case.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 28,55,377/- on account of unexplained jewelry was correctly assessed by the lower authorities. The special provisions of Section 115BBE were rightly applied as the assessee had accepted the addition in her return of income.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not properly filed as per the ITAT Rules and Section 253 of the Income Tax Act. Since the defects were not removed by the assessee, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal clarified that the assessee needs to produce sale details, including PAN numbers for transactions exceeding Rs. 2,00,000, along with purchaser details and individual purchase amounts. This modification was made to correct a missing part in the original direction.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is a directory requirement and not mandatory. It further stated that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) overrides the provisions of the Act, and rules cannot be contrary to the Act. Therefore, the disallowance of foreign tax credit was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal regarding late remittance of PF/ESI, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The appeal concerning interest on loans to sister concerns was dismissed as the assessee did not appeal the partial relief granted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the addition could not be made as the assessee retracted her statement, there was no other credible evidence, and the villas were sold to different parties. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on short-term deposits made from borrowed funds before business commencement is taxable as income from other sources and cannot be used to reduce project cost. Administrative expenses were also disallowed as the business was not yet set up.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate the source of the cash with evidence. The CIT(A) was also directed to decide the issue of the validity of the assessment concerning the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) for the revised return.

The tribunal held that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred by dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal found that the NFAC had dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits. This was considered unreasonable, and the tribunal vacated the NFAC's finding.

The tribunal held that salary accrued to a non-resident for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India, even if credited to an Indian bank account. A Tax Residency Certificate is not necessary in such cases.

The Tribunal modified the addition by estimating net profit at 4% of total credit, considering the low profit declared. For other grounds, a fresh opportunity was granted to the assessee to produce documentary evidence.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the cash deposits with requisite evidence. The assessee was directed to submit details without seeking adjournments.

The tribunal condoned the 1-day delay in filing the appeal after considering the assessee's explanation and hearing both parties. The appeal was admitted for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment was remanded back to the Assessing Officer, the penalty appeals, being a consequence of the quantum proceedings, should also be remanded. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the penalty afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The AO was directed to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the nature and source of cash deposits, keeping in mind relevant government notifications.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing him to give the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate the nature and source of the cash deposit with evidence. The AO is to decide the issue based on facts and law after hearing the assessee.