ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — July 2024

The Tribunal held that seized cash available with the Revenue can be adjusted against the admitted tax liability, even if an application for adjustment was not filed within the prescribed time. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that seized cash available with the Revenue can be adjusted against the admitted tax liability, even if an application for adjustment was not filed within the prescribed time. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that seized cash available with the Revenue can be adjusted against the admitted tax liability, even if an application for adjustment was not filed within the prescribed time. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that seized cash available with the Revenue can be adjusted against the admitted tax liability, even if a formal application for adjustment was not made within the prescribed time. The appeals were set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that seized cash available with the Revenue can be adjusted against the admitted tax liability, even if an application for adjustment was not filed within the prescribed time. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that seized cash available with the Revenue can be adjusted against the admitted tax liability, even if an application for adjustment was not filed within the prescribed time. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee has the option to choose between NAV and DCF methods, and the AO cannot change the chosen method. However, the AO can scrutinize the inputs and working of the chosen method. The Tribunal found the assessee's valuation report to be incorrect due to wrong initial figures and dates.

The Tribunal held that the revaluation of assets and crediting the increase to partners' capital accounts constitutes a transfer under Section 45(4). However, it disagreed with the CIT(A)'s direction to use the revalued amount as the full consideration, stating the fair market value needs to be determined, possibly using stamp duty values.

The ITAT held that the Pr. CIT erred in exercising powers under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had considered the issue of source for investment and accepted the assessee's claim. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that seized cash available with the Revenue can be adjusted against the admitted tax liability, even if an application for adjustment was not filed within the prescribed time. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting that the Revenue had not appealed similar orders passed in favour of co-owners, despite identical issues and findings by the CIT(A). This inconsistent approach was deemed unacceptable.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation of cash deposits being out of cash withdrawals from the same bank account to be bonafide. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the cash flow statement and restrict the addition to the extent of the negative peak cash balance.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is not allowable on investments treated as current assets. However, it remanded the issue of whether investments qualify as stock-in-trade for valuation purposes to the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly adjudicate whether actual expenditure should be adjusted against available provisions or only provisions for the current year. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) failed to examine if provisions were based on historical and scientific data.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is not allowable on investments treated as current assets. However, it remanded the issue of whether investments qualify as stock-in-trade for valuation purposes to the AO.

The tribunal remanded the issue of comparable companies to the TPO for re-examination. It also directed the application of SBI's 6% interest rate for delayed receivables, aligning with previous tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technical grounds without providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing or considering the merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is not allowable on investments treated as current assets. However, it remanded the issue of whether investments qualify as stock-in-trade for valuation at the lower of cost or market rate.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is not allowable on investments treated as current assets. However, it remanded the issue of whether investments qualify as stock-in-trade for valuation purposes to the AO.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. The assessee will be given an opportunity to file documents and submissions, and the CIT(A) will pass a detailed speaking order.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is not allowable on investments treated as current assets. However, it remanded the issue of whether investments qualify as stock-in-trade for valuation purposes to the AO.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. The assessee will be given an opportunity to file documents and submissions, and the CIT(A) will pass a detailed speaking order.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, it was proper to restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive intimation with a proper DIN in the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal directed the learned CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was also directed to attend before the learned CIT(A) on the date of hearing and submit all requisite details and evidences without seeking any adjournment. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive grounds of appeal regarding the addition of capital gains or the penalty proceedings, as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly adjudicate whether actual expenditure should be adjusted against available provisions or only provisions for the current year. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) failed to examine if provisions were based on historical and scientific data.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is not allowable on investments treated as current assets. However, it remanded the issue of whether investments qualify as stock-in-trade for valuation purposes to the AO.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is not allowable on investments treated as current assets. However, it remanded the issue of whether investments qualify as stock-in-trade for valuation purposes to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a fresh opportunity to present their case on merits, as they did not stand to gain by not producing documents. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to produce documentary evidence regarding cash deposits.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's addition of the entire ₹ 43 lakhs was not justified, as the scrutiny was limited to demonetisation period deposits. The Tribunal decided to provide the assessee an opportunity to produce evidence to justify the cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the trade discount was not genuine and lacked supporting evidence. The reversal in the subsequent year was seen as an attempt to reduce tax liability for the current year, and not a case of tax neutrality.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee is an international transaction requiring benchmarking. It also directed the AO/TPO to adopt LIBOR+200 points for interest on receivables. For weighted deduction on clinical trials, the Tribunal allowed it in favor of the assessee, following High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the trade discount was not genuine and lacked supporting evidence. The reversal in the subsequent year was seen as an attempt to reduce tax liability for the current year, and not a case of tax neutrality.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition made in the hands of the employer was pending before the CIT(A), the protective addition in the assessee's hands could not be decided independently. The CIT(A) should have consolidated the appeals.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition made in the hands of the employer was pending before the CIT(A), the protective addition in the assessee's hands could not be decided independently. The CIT(A) should have consolidated the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 10B is directory, not mandatory. Since the form was available when the CPC passed the intimation, the disallowance of exemption under Section 11 was improper.

The Tribunal held that the cash investment of Rs. 1.50 Crores was made by a partner (Shyam Ji) and not the assessee firm. Therefore, the addition could not be made in the hands of the partnership firm as partner and firm are distinct entities.

The Tribunal held that the cash investment of Rs. 1.50 Crores was made by a partner (Shyam Ji) and not the assessee firm. Therefore, the addition could not be made in the hands of the partnership firm as partner and firm are distinct entities.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee is an international transaction requiring benchmarking. It also directed the AO/TPO to adopt LIBOR+200 points for interest on receivables. For weighted deduction on clinical trials, the Tribunal allowed it in favor of the assessee, following High Court decisions.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed the business receipts were declared by its proprietor in his individual returns. The Tribunal perused the proprietor's returns and noted the bank account was declared. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the activities undertaken by the assessee in producing banana saplings, including soil preparation and pest control, qualify as agricultural activity. The income derived from this activity is therefore agricultural income.

The Tribunal held that once the source of investment in the hands of the partnership firm is explained by capital contribution from partners, and their identity is proven, no addition can be made as unexplained credit under Section 68. The CIT(A) erred in making such additions.

The Tribunal held that once the source of investment in the hands of the partnership firm is explained by capital contribution from partners, and their identity is proven, no addition can be made as unexplained credit under Section 68. The CIT(A) erred in making such additions.

The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality was not applicable to the interest earned from savings accounts and fixed deposits, as the contributors (banks) were not the same as the participants (advocates). The income from welfare fund stamps was also denied exemption due to commerciality and lack of voluntary contribution.

The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality was not applicable to the interest earned from savings accounts and fixed deposits, as the contributors (banks) were not the same as the participants (advocates). The income from welfare fund stamps was also denied exemption due to commerciality and lack of voluntary contribution.

The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality was not applicable to the interest earned from savings accounts and fixed deposits, as the contributors (banks) were not the same as the participants (advocates). The income from welfare fund stamps was also denied exemption due to commerciality and lack of voluntary contribution.

The Tribunal held that once the source of investment in the hands of the partnership firm is explained by capital contribution from partners, and their identity is proven, no addition can be made as unexplained credit under Section 68. The CIT(A) erred in making such additions.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee constitutes an international transaction requiring benchmarking. It also allowed weighted deduction for clinical trial expenses incurred outside approved facilities, following High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee constitutes an international transaction requiring benchmarking. It also allowed weighted deduction for clinical trial expenses incurred outside approved facilities, following High Court precedents.

The Tribunal accepted gifts from the assessee's parents and grandparents as their income was not disputed. However, the source of gifts from other donors was not established, and that portion of the addition was confirmed.