ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — September 2024

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income on undisclosed cash receipts. The appeals filed by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income on undisclosed cash receipts. The appeals filed by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income on undisclosed cash receipts. The appeals filed by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income on undisclosed cash receipts. The appeals filed by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income on undisclosed cash receipts. The appeals filed by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income on undisclosed cash receipts. The appeals filed by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income on undisclosed cash receipts. The appeals filed by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that there was no transfer of stock-in-trade in the year of the agreement. Following Section 45(2) of the IT Act, profits are taxable only in the year the stock-in-trade is sold or otherwise transferred, which was in subsequent years.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income on undisclosed cash receipts. The appeals filed by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income on undisclosed cash receipts. The appeals filed by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income on undisclosed cash receipts. The appeals filed by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the cash receipt and subsequent deposit due to demonetization was not properly considered. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not put on notice regarding the need for specific materials and that procedural irregularities occurred. To ensure substantial justice, the assessee was granted an opportunity to produce documents before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income on undisclosed cash receipts. The appeals filed by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income on undisclosed cash receipts. The appeals filed by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the issue of ad-hoc disallowances on employee training and printing expenses to the AO for fresh consideration. It directed the AO to follow the DRP's direction regarding the returned income and to examine the TDS credit claim. The Tribunal allowed the benchmarking of interest on receivables at LIBOR + 200 points.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income on undisclosed cash receipts. The appeals filed by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income on undisclosed cash receipts. The appeals filed by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income on undisclosed cash receipts. The appeals filed by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income on undisclosed cash receipts. The appeals filed by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income on undisclosed cash receipts. The appeals filed by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was abated at the time of search, allowing additions under section 153A. However, it found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for gifts received from relatives and directed the deletion of that addition.

The Tribunal found that the nature of payments to secondment employees required further investigation to determine if they were salaries or fees for technical services. Regarding technology licensing fees, the Tribunal noted that while the benefit test might not be the sole ground for disallowance, the assessee failed to conclusively prove the rendering of services.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed/not maintainable, citing a CBDT circular that mandates not filing appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60 lakhs. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal held that non-filing of a return is not fatal if the assessee can explain the sources of deposits and their income is below the taxable limit. The AO is directed to re-examine the case and verify all credits and demonetization deposits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive notice of hearing and that the submissions made before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) were not properly appreciated by the AO. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal to settle the dispute under the VSVS 2024. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the VSVS benefit could not be availed.

The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to provide one last opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits before the CIT(A). The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO. A fresh opportunity was granted to the assessee to produce documentary evidence regarding the source of cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was abated at the time of search, allowing additions under section 153A. However, it found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for gifts received from relatives and directed the deletion of that addition.

The Tribunal held that belated payments of employee's contribution to EPF/ESI are not allowable as deduction. However, it allowed verification of payment dates to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 10/10B is directory, not mandatory. Failure to file it before the due date is not fatal if the form is available during processing, especially when CPC processed the return.

The Tribunal held that belated payments of employee's contribution to EPF/ESI are not allowable as deduction. However, it allowed verification of payment dates to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed two identical appeals against the same order of the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the present appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that capital gains on conversion of capital asset to stock-in-trade should be taxed in the year the stock-in-trade is sold, and the fair market value should be determined correctly. The issue of deemed dividend was also remanded for fresh consideration by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the Section 54 exemption as the entire capital gain was utilized for purchasing a new property within the stipulated period. The appeal was decided in favour of the legal heir of the deceased assessee.

The Tribunal noted that a subsequent SEBI order dated 21.09.2017 exonerated the entities involved in the transactions, including M/s. Jatadhari Marketing Private Limited, through which the shares were purchased. Therefore, the Tribunal found no evidence of bogus transactions or price manipulation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) for profits derived from infrastructure projects awarded to a JV/Consortium but executed by the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance to the extent of exempt income. For employee PF contributions, the Tribunal partly reversed the CIT(A)'s order, upholding the AO's addition for two payments made beyond the grace period.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, it was found that if the assessee provides necessary evidence like purchase/sale bills and demat statements, LTCG from share transactions should be allowed exemption.

The Tribunal held that the appeal against the 143(1) order does not automatically become infructuous even if a 143(3) order is passed, especially when the 143(3) order does not discuss the disallowances made in the 143(1) intimation. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

The Tribunal noted that a subsequent SEBI order dated 21.09.2017 exonerated the entities involved in the transactions, including M/s. Jatadhari Marketing Private Limited, through which the shares were purchased. Therefore, the Tribunal found no evidence of bogus transactions or price manipulation.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act as it did not deal with the appeal on merits. The tribunal found it in the interest of justice to set aside the order and restore the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits violated Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal found it reasonable to remit the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act as it failed to decide the appeal on merits. The Tribunal found it reasonable to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration.

The assessee's counsel, on instructions, requested to withdraw all the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The assessee's counsel, on instructions, requested to withdraw all the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing the AO an opportunity to comment on the documents submitted by the assessee. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the executors are entitled to the TDS credit deducted on the deceased's PAN, provided no return was filed by the deceased claiming the same. For the assessment year 2023-24, the income is to be taxed at normal slab rates applicable to an individual.

The assessee's counsel, on instructions, requested to withdraw all the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, a concluded assessment cannot be disturbed. Therefore, additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable.