ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — November 2024

The Tribunal held that unrealized foreign currency gains included in book profit should be reduced from taxable income as per amended provisions of the Act. The Tribunal also held that discount on issue of ESOP/ESPP is an allowable expenditure, following its own previous decisions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee firm was constituted on April 16, 2013, and therefore, did not exist during AY 2013-14. The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to provide details of the loan transaction and establish its existence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee firm was constituted on April 16, 2013, and therefore, did not exist during AY 2013-14. The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to provide details of the loan transaction and establish its existence.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were barred by limitation as they were made beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153(2) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were barred by limitation as they were made beyond the time prescribed under Section 153(2) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that provisions for doubtful debts are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(viia)(a) subject to prescribed limits. It also directed verification of whether certain provisions were claimed as expenses, and allowed a fresh opportunity to produce evidence for other disallowed expenses.

The Tribunal held that the assessee firm was constituted on April 16, 2013, and therefore, did not exist during AY 2013-14. The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to provide details of the loan transaction and establish its existence.

The Tribunal held that unrealized foreign currency gains included in book profit should be reduced from taxable income as per amended provisions of the Act. The Tribunal also held that discount on issue of ESOP/ESPP is an allowable expenditure, following its own previous decisions.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were barred by limitation as they were made beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153(2) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were barred by limitation as they were made beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153(2) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the issues on merits even in ex-parte proceedings. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for denovo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by sending notices via email when the assessee had opted out of email communication. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s order lacked proper reasoning as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the issues on merits even in ex-parte proceedings. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for denovo consideration.

The Tribunal held that a mere change of ownership through a slump sale does not disqualify an undertaking from claiming deduction under Section 80IA, provided the undertaking remains intact and no reconstruction or splitting of existing business occurred.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 80IA(4). It reasoned that beneficial exemption provisions should be interpreted liberally and that the assessee, as a constituent partner of a Joint Venture, fulfilled the conditions, including entering into an agreement through the JV.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee is an individual and not required to maintain books of accounts, and had explained the source of cash as business income, the Assessing Officer erred in taxing it under Section 69A and 115BBE. The additional income should be assessed as business income at normal rates.

The Tribunal held that as per the Supreme Court decision in TRF Ltd. vs. CIT, the only requirement for claiming deduction for bad debts is that they must be written off in the books of accounts as irrecoverable. The assessee is not required to prove that the debt has actually become bad.

The Tribunal held that a mere change of ownership through a slump sale does not disqualify an undertaking from claiming deduction under Section 80IA, provided the undertaking remains intact and no reconstruction or splitting of existing business occurred.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing only a 10% deduction. It directed that 60% of the receipts should be allowed as expenditure, considering the nature of the material and the possibility of other expenses like transportation and packing.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim for expenditure against unaccounted receipts was valid, the CIT(A)'s estimation of 10% was too low. The Tribunal directed that 60% of the receipts should be allowed as expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing only 10% expenditure and directed the Assessing Officer to allow 60% of the receipts as expenditure, sustaining 40% of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing only 10% of the receipts as expenditure. Considering the nature of hazardous waste disposal and employee affidavits, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow 60% of the receipts as expenditure.

The tribunal held that while the assessee's claim for expenditure was valid, the CIT(A)'s estimation of 10% was too low. It directed that 60% of the receipts should be allowed as expenditure.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim for expenditure against unaccounted receipts was valid, the CIT(A)'s estimation of 10% was too low. The Tribunal directed that 60% of the receipts should be allowed as expenditure.

The tribunal held that while the assessee's claim for expenditure was valid, the CIT(A)'s estimation of 10% was too low. It directed that 60% of the receipts should be allowed as expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing only a 10% deduction. It directed that 60% of the receipts should be allowed as expenditure, considering the nature of the material and the possibility of other expenses like transportation and packing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing only a 10% deduction. It directed that 60% of the receipts should be allowed as expenditure, considering the nature of the material and the possibility of other expenses like transportation and packing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing only 10% expenditure and directed the Assessing Officer to allow 60% of the receipts as expenditure, sustaining 40% of the addition.

The Tribunal held that since the contract was cancelled and no income accrued, Rule 37BA(3)(ii) was not applicable. The assessee was rightly entitled to claim the TDS credit for the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim for expenditure against unaccounted receipts was valid, the CIT(A)'s estimation of 10% was too low. It directed that 60% of the receipts should be allowed as expenditure.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim for expenditure against unaccounted receipts was valid, the CIT(A)'s estimation of 10% was too low. It directed that 60% of the receipts should be allowed as expenditure.

The Tribunal held that trade receivables constitute an international transaction liable for separate benchmarking. It also directed that the interest rate on trade receivables should be benchmarked at LIBOR + 200 points. However, the credit period agreed between the parties and mentioned in sale invoices was to be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing only 10% expenditure and directed the Assessing Officer to allow 60% of the receipts as expenditure, sustaining 40% of the addition.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim for expenditure against unaccounted receipts was valid, the CIT(A)'s estimation of 10% was too low. The Tribunal directed that 60% of the receipts should be allowed as expenditure.

The Tribunal condoned the 14-day delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause for the belated submission. The appeal was admitted for hearing in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal set aside the issue of comparable company selection to the TPO for reconsideration based on functional comparability and applicable filters. Regarding deferred receivables, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to apply a 6% interest rate after a 60-day credit period, following a consistent approach from previous years.

The Tribunal condoned the 14-day delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause for the belated submission. The appeal was admitted for hearing in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 279/Misc./M-74/2024-ITJ mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60 lakhs should not be filed before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed a reply and additional evidence, which was not considered by the CIT(A) before dismissing the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the assessee's mistake in selecting the wrong sub-clause for registration. The CIT(E) was directed to allow the assessee to apply now in the correct form (Form 10A) and dispose of the request.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issue is restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of the assessee's evidence regarding credit card payments.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not maintain regular books of account, the question of auditing them does not arise. The penalty order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not maintain regular books of account, the question of auditing them does not arise. The penalty order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's rejection of the assessee's explanation for cash deposits was arbitrary, as the withdrawal was supported by bank statements and no contrary evidence was presented. Therefore, the revision order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that belated payments of employee's contribution towards PF and ESI, even if made before the due date of filing the return of income, are not allowable as a deduction. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not maintain regular books of account, the question of auditing them does not arise. The penalty order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application without considering the details already submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to submit relevant details.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence for the cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) ought to have kept the proceedings in abeyance or independently ascertained the fair market value of the property by referring to the DVO, given the ongoing dispute between the assessee and the stamp duty authorities regarding the fair market value. The Tribunal noted that there was no dispute regarding the fact that a difference existed between the sale deed consideration and the stamp duty value, which exceeded the prescribed limit under Section 56(2)(x). However, the assessee admitted the stamp duty value as fixed by the authorities, and the sole dispute pertained to the ongoing litigation on the fair market value. Since the learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's objection without ascertaining the correct fair market value and despite being aware of the pending litigation, the Tribunal set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer was directed to reconsider the issue after examining the details provided by the assessee and the pending litigation, and also to independently ascertain the fair market value.