ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — June 2024

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in cancelling the registration as the alleged violations did not fall under the specified categories defined in the explanation to Section 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the trust's actions were either administrative or served the objects of general public utility.

The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under Section 143(2) on the same day as the filing of the return is invalid as it indicates a lack of application of mind by the AO. Consequently, the assessment made based on such a notice cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal held that turnover is a relevant factor for selecting comparables in transfer pricing and directed the AO to apply a turnover filter of ten times on both ends. It also directed the exclusion of certain entities due to functional dissimilarity and remanded the case for fresh consideration of another entity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It admitted additional evidence and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of deposits during the demonetisation period and evaluation of books of accounts.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rejected the assessee's request for a remand report on a hyper-technical ground and dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits. The Tribunal found it necessary for the CIT(A) to either examine the evidence or call for a remand report.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rejected the assessee's evidence on a hyper-technical ground and failed to examine the evidence or call for a remand report. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the evidence.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify Form 26AS and determine the correct tax liability. The Tribunal found that Form 26AS showing payments to a subcontractor is a verifiable fact.

The Tribunal reduced the estimated business income to 3% of turnover, considering the introduction of privilege fees. It confirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to verify the quantum of SBN deposits and upheld that a wrong section cited does not vitiate the addition, implying Section 69A could be applicable.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, allowing the assessee an opportunity to submit material and participate in proceedings. This was done to decide the case on merits without causing prejudice to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the F&O transactions in steel products were speculative as they were neither raw materials nor finished products for the assessee, and thus the loss could not be set off against regular business income. The Tribunal also upheld the addition of share application money, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate its genuineness due to non-compliance with notices and discrepancies.

The Tribunal is examining whether the CIT(A) exceeded their jurisdiction by allowing additional evidence and deciding issues not directly arising from the Section 263 order. The core dispute revolves around the correct computation of capital gains and the deductibility of certain expenditures.

The Tribunal excluded four comparables based on functional dissimilarity and turnover, following previous years' decisions. It directed the inclusion of one comparable after allowing extrapolation of financial data and upheld the exclusion of two others due to insufficient substantiation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, accepted the assessee's plea regarding the deposit not being in his personal account, and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as there was no prior opinion formed by the Assessing Officer. It further ruled that notional foreign exchange gains from accounting entries are not eligible for deduction under Section 10B.

The Tribunal held that the credits and withdrawals from the mother's account could be believed as the source for credit card payments, directing deletion of the addition. For other deposits, the issue was restored to the AO to consider evidence from the assessee.

The Tribunal found that if the total consideration offered by the assessee (sale deed amount plus development charges) was considered, the difference with the stamp duty valuation might be less than 10%. However, it was unclear if these documents were presented to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal partly allowed some appeals, allowing others, and dismissed others. Key decisions involved reversing findings on cash payments for property purchases and upholding CIT(A) decisions on other matters.

The Tribunal partly allowed some appeals, allowing others, and dismissed others. Key decisions involved reversing findings on cash payments for property purchases and upholding CIT(A) decisions on other matters.

The Tribunal partly allowed some appeals, allowing others, and dismissed others. Key decisions involved reversing findings on cash payments for property purchases and upholding CIT(A) decisions on other matters.

The Tribunal partly allowed some appeals, allowing others, and dismissed others. Key decisions involved reversing findings on cash payments for property purchases and upholding CIT(A) decisions on other matters.

The Tribunal partly allowed some appeals, allowing others, and dismissed others. Key decisions involved reversing findings on cash payments for property purchases and upholding CIT(A) decisions on other matters.

The Tribunal partly allowed some appeals, allowing others, and dismissed others. Key decisions involved reversing findings on cash payments for property purchases and upholding CIT(A) decisions on other matters.

The Tribunal partly allowed some appeals, allowing others, and dismissed others. Key decisions involved reversing findings on cash payments for property purchases and upholding CIT(A) decisions on other matters.

The Tribunal partly allowed some appeals, allowing others, and dismissed others. Key decisions involved reversing findings on cash payments for property purchases and upholding CIT(A) decisions on other matters.

The Tribunal held that the interest income from inter-corporate deposits should be treated as business income, as it aligns with the company's objects in its Memorandum of Association. A solitary transaction can constitute business activity if it's in accordance with the company's stated objects, and the principle of consistency does not prevent correcting a wrongly assessed head of income in earlier years.

The Tribunal held that the issue of foreign contribution needed verification by the AO to ascertain if the misclassification affected taxability. For provisions, the Tribunal found no demonstration of reasonable and scientific basis or ascertained liability, thus disallowing them as application of income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties from whom money was received. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in concluding the assessee was a partnership firm based solely on its PAN, especially when the ITR and assessment order clearly identified it as a cooperative society. The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that the cash book filed by the assessee, even if in physical form, should have been considered. Since the source of cash deposit could be from opening balance, it cannot be automatically treated as unexplained money. The issue needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to furnish necessary details and evidence. A penalty of Rs. 2000/- was levied on the assessee for non-compliance.

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without condoning the delay and without appreciating the merits of the case. The Tribunal is considering the assessee's contention that the delay should have been condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) considering the reasonable cause and principles of natural justice. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of additions made under Section 37 for payments to third parties, finding the disallowance unjustified. It directed the AO to verify and allow expenses exclusively attributable to the Indian project under Section 44C, but sustained disallowances under Section 40(a)(i) as no ground was raised. The issue of bad debts was restored to the AO for verification.

The ITAT held that the lower appellate authority's order was not in compliance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act as it dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the merits. The tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities.

The Tribunal held that not charging interest on loans is not inherently suspicious and depends on the relationship between parties. The assessee, with a declared income, depositing cash during demonetization is not necessarily suspicious. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) considering the reasonable cause and principles of natural justice. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that mere discrepancies in filling up forms should not lead to rejection of a claim, especially in light of CBDT circulars and High Court judgments. The delay in filing Form 10B was also condoned.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's sales turnover was verified with reference to his books of accounts and no discrepancies were found, the source of cash deposits should not be disbelieved. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had made errors in adjudicating certain grounds, particularly by mistaking the scope of rectification applications and by dismissing grounds without properly considering the evidence filed by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders on these specific issues.

The Tribunal held that turnover is a relevant criterion for selecting comparable companies in Transfer Pricing cases. It directed the Assessing Officer to adopt a turnover filter of ten times on both sides of the assessee's turnover for a fresh search.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had made errors in adjudicating certain grounds, particularly by mistaking the scope of rectification applications and by dismissing grounds without properly considering the evidence filed by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders on these specific issues.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had made errors in adjudicating certain grounds, particularly by mistaking the scope of rectification applications and by dismissing grounds without properly considering the evidence filed by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders on these specific issues.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the AO. The assessee is granted a last opportunity to produce documentary evidence and present their case on merits.

The Tribunal held that donations made for CSR obligations are eligible for deduction under Section 80G if the donee institutions satisfy the conditions specified therein. The Tribunal also directed the refund of excess DDT paid by the assessee, citing established legal precedent.

The Tribunal held that surcharge is not leviable on income less than Rs. 50 lakhs, as per the definition of maximum marginal rate and relevant Finance Act provisions. It followed a coordinate bench decision that surcharge is linked to the highest slab of income.

The Tribunal directed the AO to allow credit for the opening cash balance as on November 8, 2016, towards the cash deposits. It also directed verification of a specific cash deposit of Rs. 2,20,000/- and set aside the issue of estimated profit on differential turnover to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was cryptic and non-speaking, failing to decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Recognizing that the assessee was ready to produce documentary evidence and that a decision on merits would be beneficial, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal held that donations made for CSR obligations are eligible for deduction under Section 80G if the donee institutions satisfy the conditions specified therein. The Tribunal also directed the refund of excess DDT paid by the assessee, citing established legal precedent.