ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — October 2024

The Tribunal held that Section 194C is not applicable to reimbursement of expenses. Furthermore, since the recipient companies included these amounts in their income and paid taxes, the assessee is deemed to have deducted and paid taxes as per the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia).

The Tribunal noted that SEBI had exonerated M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Limited and shares traded through M/s. Jatadhari Marketing Private Limited from allegations of price manipulation. Consequently, the Tribunal found no evidence of bogus transactions by the assessee and deleted the additions.

The Tribunal found that while rejecting the books of account was justified due to lack of evidence, the Assessing Officer's estimation of 10% net profit was not supported by valid reasons. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate 5% net profit on total contract receipts.

The Tribunal held that the capital gain was correctly assessed for AY 2009-10 based on the GPA dated 21/05/2008, which satisfied the conditions for transfer. However, the claim for deduction under Section 54 was not properly examined by the CIT(A) and was set aside to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153(2) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153(2) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the assessee invested the entire sale consideration within two years of the original asset transfer needs to be re-examined by the AO. If the AO finds this to be true, the assessee would be eligible for deduction under Section 54F.

The Tribunal noted that SEBI had exonerated M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Limited and shares traded through M/s. Jatadhari Marketing Private Limited from allegations of price manipulation. Consequently, the Tribunal found no evidence of bogus transactions by the assessee and deleted the additions.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, issuing notices too close together. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already restricted the disallowance. The assessee's counsel argued that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance without considering submitted documents.

The Tribunal held that once a valid return is filed under Section 139(4) before the assessment is completed, the AO should consider that return. Issuing a notice under Section 148 when a valid return under Section 139(4) has been filed is not permissible, rendering the reassessment proceedings void.

The Tribunal held that Section 206AA cannot be invoked for non-resident service providers as obtaining a PAN is not mandatory for them. DTAA provisions prevail over domestic law, and the TDS rate as per the DTAA is applicable.

The Tribunal held that it was premature to levy penalty when the main assessment appeal challenging the additions was pending. The penalty proceedings should be reconsidered after the outcome of the appeal on the additions is decided.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal without discussing the merits, as the assessee failed to appear. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present documents.

The Tribunal held that leasing out unsold commercial space does not amount to conversion of work-in-progress or inventory into a fixed asset under Section 28(via). For unabated assessments, additions cannot be made without incriminating material found during search.

The Tribunal held that royalty payment for using a registered brand name, as per agreement, is a business expenditure and allowable. It also found that site seeing expenses were in the nature of reimbursement and thus allowable.

For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding no evidence of cash payment for the difference. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the addition as the assessee failed to substantiate the reduced sale consideration with evidence.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained investment in the purchase of property under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-18 was erroneous. The Tribunal noted that the sale deed was executed on 01/09/2014, which falls within the financial year 2014-15, relevant to AY 2015-16. Furthermore, the registration date of the document was 05/02/2016, falling within the financial year 2015-16, relevant to AY 2016-17. The date of payment of stamp duty was 23/11/2015, also falling within AY 2016-17. Since neither the date of execution nor the date of registration or stamp duty payment fell within the impugned AY 2017-18, the assessment for this year was incorrect. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made for AY 2017-18. Regarding the other grounds raised by the assessee concerning the dispute on title and the applicability of Section 69, the Tribunal deemed them academic in nature, as the primary issue of the correct assessment year was decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that royalty payment for using a registered brand name, as per agreement, is a business expenditure and allowable. It also found that site seeing expenses were in the nature of reimbursement and thus allowable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the merits of the appeal due to the assessee's non-representation. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering all evidence and affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing, subject to a cost.

For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding no evidence of cash payment for the difference. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the addition as the assessee failed to substantiate the reduced sale consideration with evidence.

The Tribunal held that leasing out unsold commercial space does not amount to conversion of work-in-progress or inventory into a fixed asset under Section 28(via). For unabated assessments, additions cannot be made without incriminating material found during search.

The Tribunal held that leasing out unsold commercial space does not amount to conversion of work-in-progress or inventory into a fixed asset under Section 28(via). For unabated assessments, additions cannot be made without incriminating material found during search.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard, considering the business closure and non-receipt of notices.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard, considering the business closure and non-receipt of notices.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard, considering the business closure and non-receipt of notices.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard, considering the business closure and non-receipt of notices.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard, considering the business closure and non-receipt of notices.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn. However, the assessee was granted liberty to approach the tribunal if their case was not accepted under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard, considering the business closure and non-receipt of notices.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60,00,000/- are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard, considering the business closure and non-receipt of notices.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard, considering the business closure and non-receipt of notices.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard, considering the business closure and non-receipt of notices.

The Tribunal held that cash received as return of loans from members is not covered under Section 269SS, and thus penalty under Section 271D for such receipts should be deleted. It also held that Section 269T prohibits repayment of loans/deposits/advances in cash, not the making of advances in cash, thus deleting the penalty under Section 271E.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted a fresh opportunity to produce documentary evidence and present their case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the expenditure could not be doubted as the creditors provided bills, TDS was deducted, and creditors confirmed the work done and payments received indirectly. The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the sources of expenditure from its overdraft account, making Section 69C inapplicable.

The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for all years as there was no appearance. For the revenue's appeal, the tribunal allowed it on the issue of disallowance of employees' PF contribution, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for all years as there was no appearance. For the revenue's appeal, the tribunal allowed it on the issue of disallowance of employees' PF contribution, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging that the assessee's business involves cash transactions, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the full claim of re-deposits. Therefore, the addition was confirmed to the extent of Rs. 6,00,000/-, and the remaining Rs. 6,50,000/- was deleted.

The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for all years as there was no appearance. For the revenue's appeal, the tribunal allowed it on the issue of disallowance of employees' PF contribution, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's age and profession but noted the lack of documentary evidence for cash withdrawals over five years prior to the assessment year. While the CIT(A) had granted partial relief, the Tribunal decided to confirm an addition of Rs. 20,00,000 and delete the remaining Rs. 12,45,700.

The Tribunal held that for a non-resident, if the entire income is subject to withholding tax and the differential tax is paid at the time of filing the return, the liability to pay advance tax does not arise. Consequently, interest under sections 234B and 234C is not leviable.

The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for all years as there was no appearance. For the revenue's appeal, the tribunal allowed it on the issue of disallowance of employees' PF contribution, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that cash received as return of loans from members is not covered under Section 269SS, and thus penalty under Section 271D for such receipts should be deleted. It also held that Section 269T prohibits repayment of loans/deposits/advances in cash, not the making of advances in cash, thus deleting the penalty under Section 271E.

The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for all years as there was no appearance. For the revenue's appeal, the tribunal allowed it on the issue of disallowance of employees' PF contribution, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that there was a reasonable cause and that the Supreme Court's suo motu order on limitation period extended the time. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the registered Development Agreement cum GPA, coupled with the transfer of possession as per clause 8 of the agreement, signifies the transfer of property in the assessment year 2016-17. An affidavit from the developer stating non-delivery of possession was disregarded as self-serving and subordinate to the registered document.

The Tribunal held that the registered Development Agreement cum GPA, coupled with the transfer of possession as per clause 8 of the agreement, signifies the transfer of property in the assessment year 2016-17. An affidavit from the developer stating non-delivery of possession was disregarded as self-serving and subordinate to the registered document.

The Tribunal noted that the new asset was completed after the sale of the old flats, but the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the expenditure incurred after the sale. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.