ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — October 2024

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry regarding the capital reduction scheme during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal held that a turnover filter of Rs. 200 crores for the upper limit should be considered for comparability. It also directed that interest on trade receivables should be levied only for the period exceeding 60 days, and the interest rate should be LIBOR + 200 basis points.

The Tribunal held that it was not proper to hold the assessee responsible for non-furnishing information when they were not put on notice. The Tribunal decided to provide an opportunity for the assessee to present their case before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice.

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 before the Tribunal. The Revenue should have either not filed or withdrawn the appeal.

The Tribunal held that it was not proper to hold the assessee responsible for non-furnishing information when they were not properly notified. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that it was not proper to hold the assessee responsible for non-compliance as they were not properly put on notice. The Tribunal decided to provide an opportunity for the assessee to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal held that an assessee cannot make a fresh claim for deduction under Chapter VI-A for the first time in a return filed in response to a notice under Section 153A, unless the assessment is abated. This is to prevent redundancy of Sections 80A(5) and 80AC and ensure strict interpretation of deduction provisions.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory and not mandatory. Since the form was filed before the assessment order was passed, the FTC cannot be denied. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory and not mandatory. Since the form was filed before the assessment order was passed, the FTC cannot be denied. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case.

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. A fresh opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee, subject to payment of costs.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's estimation of income at 8% was not accepted, a coordinate bench had previously estimated net profit at 3% in a similar case. Therefore, the AO was directed to recompute the income at 3% of the turnover.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, deleting additions related to housing loan interest, a loan obtained and repaid, and SBI deposits due to satisfactory explanation and supporting evidence. Additions related to Section 50C, Axis Bank deposits, and aqua business income were dismissed for lack of evidence or being not pressed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea for an opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A) based on principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 30.00 lakhs as there was clear evidence of payment with signed receipts. However, the addition of Rs. 41.00 lakhs was deleted due to lack of corroborative evidence beyond loose sheet jottings.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to provide evidence earlier, they are now willing to do so. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper inquiries regarding cash deposits under Section 68 and made an erroneous estimation of profit. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner was justified in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 145 days before the CIT(A), finding the explanation for the delay to be satisfactory. The matter was directed to be decided afresh by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that since the expenditure and its repayment were verifiable from the assessee's books, the Assessing Officer should have verified these facts. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that advances from 6 parties totaling Rs. 14.60 crores were sufficiently explained and directed deletion of the addition to that extent. The Tribunal also directed deletion of the addition of Rs. 4.63 crores representing cash withdrawals from the bank, finding the AO's reasoning for rejection fallacious.

The Tribunal held that once the PCIT's order under Section 263 was quashed, any consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer based on it would not survive. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's appeal was upheld.