ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — January 2025

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on a technical ground without deciding the merits. The non-payment of advance tax issue does not arise when the taxability of the income itself is disputed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to apply a uniform profit rate of 15% on deleted/modified receipts, following a previous jurisdictional ITAT ruling. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(E) ought to have considered the application on merits given the substantial information already provided, rather than dismissing it on technical grounds. The order of the Ld.CIT(E) was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, agreeing that it is not applicable when no exempt income is earned. The ground regarding non-payment of self-assessment tax was rendered infructuous as the tax was paid.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim that the deposit was from a loan and her readiness to furnish evidence. Considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh examination, granting the assessee an opportunity to present all necessary information and documents.

The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(E) ought to have considered the application on merits given the substantial information already provided, rather than dismissing it on technical grounds. The order of the Ld.CIT(E) was set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal by filing a Miscellaneous Application if their case is not accepted under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. However, it deleted the addition for capital contribution as it was already accounted for in the land investment. The addition for land investment was sustained based on the CIT(A)'s restricted amount.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act, as it failed to provide reasons for the decision. The assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had settled their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and had filed applications for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had settled their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and had filed applications for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessees had settled their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and filed withdrawal letters. The revenue did not object. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessees had settled their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and filed withdrawal letters. The revenue did not object. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessees had settled their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and filed withdrawal letters. The revenue did not object. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessees had settled their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and filed withdrawal letters. The revenue did not object. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the assessees had settled their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and filed withdrawal letters. The revenue did not object. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a liberty granted to the assessee to file a Miscellaneous Application to reinstate the appeals if their case is not accepted under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a liberty granted to the assessee to file a Miscellaneous Application to reinstate the appeals if their case is not accepted under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a liberty granted to the assessee to file a Miscellaneous Application to reinstate the appeals if their case is not accepted under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 4.83 crores relating to a provision for technical services from a prior year, as no claim was made for it in the current AY. It remanded the TP adjustments for technical services (Rs. 8.05 lakhs) and regional support services (Rs. 4.77 crores) back to the Ld. DRP/AO/TPO for fresh adjudication and verification of additional evidence, respectively. The addition for unbilled revenue (Rs. 4.35 crores) was also remanded to the Ld. AO to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal noted that the assessees had settled their disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and filed withdrawal letters. The revenue did not object. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order as the assessee failed to appear despite multiple opportunities. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the appeal afresh on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee, with a caution for the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had already disallowed the interest expenditure in its tax audit report as per ICDS-IX, and the jurisdictional AO had later deleted this addition through rectification orders u/s 154. Therefore, the additions made by the AO/CPC and sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) were not sustainable as it amounted to double disallowance/addition.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had filed a letter for withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the assessee's mistake in selecting the wrong section code and filing the incorrect form. They directed the CIT(E) to hear and dispose of the assessee's request, allowing them to apply now using the correct Form 10A.

The Tribunal held that due to the prevailing conditions of the COVID pandemic, the non-filing of Form-10 within the prescribed time should not be a ground to deny exemption. The delay in filing the form ought to have been condoned by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal, referencing Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, along with judicial precedents, ruled that no actual delay occurred as the last day was a public holiday. It further held that even if a delay was construed, a one-day delay should be condoned. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the DRP's order and remanded the matter back for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay before the Tribunal, citing reasonable cause. For the delay before the CIT(A), the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea regarding the ongoing prosecution of a related claim before the AO and decided to give an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for consideration on merits after affording an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not independently examined certain contracts but relied on previous orders. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh independent examination of these contracts.

The Tribunal, acknowledging that the non-production of evidence by the assessee was due to reasons beyond their control and considering principles of natural justice, decided to grant one final opportunity. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and submit evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee one last opportunity to produce supporting evidences.

The Tribunal held that contracts at Sl.Nos.2-16, 22-28, 33 and 35 to 38 were eligible for deduction as their eligibility had attained finality. However, contracts at Sl.Nos.1, 17, 18, 19, 21, 29, 32 and 34 required independent examination.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 27.06.2024 without considering the submissions filed by the assessee on the same date. The Tribunal noted that the assessee does not stand to gain by not producing documents and is now ready to produce all documentary evidence. Considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one last opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for passing a fresh order on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The grounds of appeal were answered accordingly. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issues of penalty or the merits of the assessee's claim but remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Form 10-IC filed on March 29, 2022, for AY 2021-22, should be treated as valid for AY 2022-23 and subsequent years, allowing the assessee to avail the benefit of Section 115BAA.

The Tribunal held that the principle of substance over form should apply. It observed that most payments for both purchase and sale were made through banking channels as per the unregistered agreements, which substantiated the assessee's claims and reflected the actual transactions. The Tribunal noted that Section 50C of the Act recognizes unregistered prior agreements, subject to payment of consideration through banking channels. Therefore, ignoring the unregistered agreements would lead to a distorted computation of capital gain, contrary to fair taxation. The reliance by the AO and CIT(A) on registered agreements without considering banking transactions and unregistered agreements was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the LTCG by considering the purchase cost at Rs. 2,35,65,595/- and sales consideration at Rs. 2,42,10,000/-, based on the unregistered agreements. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 57,29,000/- made under Section 69A of the Act. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal noted that the orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee one last opportunity to produce supporting evidences.

The Tribunal noted that the orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee one last opportunity to produce supporting evidences.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not independently examined certain contracts but relied on previous orders. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination of these specific contracts.

The Tribunal addressed the issues raised by the assessee. Regarding the economic adjustment for manufacturing operations (Issue 3, Ground 6.1), the Tribunal held that the reasons cited by the assessee for decreased profitability (general economic and market conditions) affected the industry as a whole, not just the assessee uniquely. Therefore, it was not mandatory to make such an adjustment, distinguishing the case from Honda Motorcycle & Scooters India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention, dismissing this issue. Concerning foreign exchange loss (Issue 4, Ground 7.1), the Tribunal, following the decision in Sap Lab India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, held that foreign exchange fluctuation gains are an integral part of sale proceeds in export business and cannot be excluded from operating margin computation. It also noted that no evidence was produced to show the loss was non-operating. The Tribunal upheld the AO/TPO's decision, dismissing this contention. Regarding outstanding receivables (Issue 5, Ground 8.1), the Tribunal affirmed that trade receivables are an international transaction liable for benchmarking, citing the Explanation to Section 92B of the Act. Thus, the AO/TPO's treatment of trade receivables as a separate international transaction was upheld. However, concerning the period for charging notional interest, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to exclude the normal credit period provided to non-Associated Enterprises when calculating notional interest on trade receivables for Associated Enterprises. This claim was partly allowed for statistical purposes. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal decided to remand two issues to the Assessing Officer (AO). Firstly, regarding the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54F, the Tribunal noted that the deposit in the Capital Gains Account Scheme (CGAS) was made after the due date specified under Section 139(1) but before the filing of the return under Section 139(4). The Tribunal held that to decide eligibility for exemption, it is necessary to verify if the amount deposited in CGAS was subsequently invested in the purchase or construction of residential property within the time specified under Section 54F. Therefore, this issue was remanded to the AO for verification of the utilization of funds and to allow exemption if the conditions were met. Secondly, concerning the Revenue's contention that the assessee owned more than one residential house, thus disentitling them from Section 54F exemption, the Tribunal found that while the assessee showed income from two house properties, it was a matter of verification whether both were residential. This issue was also remanded to the AO to ascertain the nature of both properties and deny exemption only if both were residential and owned by the assessee on the transfer date. The appeal of the assessee and the Cross Objection of the Revenue were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including ledger accounts, bank statements, and bills/vouchers before the CIT(A), to substantiate the claimed expenditure. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's objection regarding the non-calling of a remand report.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the additions. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditors with credible evidence, and also failed to provide evidence for Section 80C deductions.

While noting the assessee's failure to provide reasonable cause for the delay, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted another opportunity. The appeal is remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh order after providing the assessee a full opportunity to present evidence and be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was able to prove the creditworthiness of loan creditors for Rs. 70,00,000/-. However, the creditworthiness of the remaining loan creditors (Om Prakash Bahiti and Yashoda Industries) was not established. Accordingly, a part of the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including ledger accounts, bank statements, and bills/vouchers before the CIT(A), to substantiate the claimed expenditure. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's objection regarding the non-calling of a remand report.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including ledger accounts, bank statements, and bills/vouchers before the CIT(A), to substantiate the claimed expenditure. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's objection regarding the non-calling of a remand report.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue representative conceded to the request. The assessee was given liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application to reinstate the case if their VSVS settlement was not accepted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the additions. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditors with credible evidence, and also failed to provide evidence for Section 80C deductions.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application by the CIT(E) was erroneous as it was based on a technical error and opposed to a CBDT circular that extended the due date for filing revised forms. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order.