ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal held that the entire bank credits could not be treated as turnover without supporting evidence. Regarding the land sale, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not properly confronted with the incriminating material, necessitating a re-examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2011-12 subject to a cost. The additional grounds regarding the validity of the reassessment notice u/s 143(2) were dismissed as the notice was found to be issued. Grounds related to validity of notice u/s 147 and approval u/s 151 were also dismissed. The issues concerning share application money, VAT disallowance, and sales/purchase differences were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals and condoned the delay, subject to a cost of Rs. 2500/- per appeal. The appeals were then allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals and condoned the delay, subject to a cost of Rs. 2500/- per appeal. The appeals were then allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal decided as follows: For AY 2011-12: 1. The delay of 186 days in filing the appeal was condoned, subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000/- payable to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The Tribunal found the explanation of misplaced papers, supported by an affidavit, to be a reasonable cause. 2. The grounds challenging the validity of reopening under Section 147 and notice under Section 148 were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed these grounds by merely reproducing the appellant's grounds and stating that the submissions were not accepted, without proper adjudication. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) vs. Income Tax Officer, emphasizing the need for a speaking order on objections raised. 3. The addition of Rs. 1,66,50,000/- under Section 68 was also set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the grounds without adjudicating on specific grounds related to the Section 68 addition, including the lack of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. For AY 2012-13: 4. The issue regarding the disallowance of Rs. 86,490/- under Section 43B for VAT payment was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of the assessee's claim that the VAT was paid before the due date of filing the return. The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim and the lack of specific findings on this aspect by the lower authorities. 5. The issue regarding the addition of Rs. 4,800/- for the difference in sales and purchases was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Tribunal observed that while the AO noted a difference of Rs. 4,800/- despite a reconciliation statement being filed, an opportunity for the assessee to explain and reconcile the difference was necessary. The operative direction for both appeals was to allow them for statistical purposes, implying a remand to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration on the merits of the issues.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals and condoned the delay, subject to a cost of Rs. 2500/- per appeal. The appeals were then allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, and the DR has raised no objection to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee is allowed to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a constituent member of a JV, cannot claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) if the agreement was with the government by the JV itself, not directly by the assessee. However, the issue of whether a deduction can be claimed for the first time under Section 153A was referred to a Special Bench.

The Tribunal held that a fresh claim for deduction under Section 80IA(4) cannot be made for the first time in a return filed under Section 153A following a search, especially in unabated assessments. The eligibility criteria for the deduction were also examined.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) even for projects executed through Joint Ventures, provided the JV entered into an agreement with the government. The disallowance of the entire claim for JV projects was not justified.

The Tribunal held that for abated assessments, a fresh claim for deduction under Section 80IA(4) made in response to a Section 153A notice is permissible. For unabated assessments, such fresh claims are not allowed. The Tribunal also ruled that deduction under Section 80IA(4) cannot be denied solely because the agreement was with a JV and not directly with a government authority, provided the project itself is eligible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the cash deposits, including the refund of land syndication advances. The Assessing Officer erred in making additions as the sources were explained and supported by documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making additions for cash deposits as the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to explain the source of funds. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat deficit stock as unaccounted sales and sustained the estimation of profit at 6.31% based on the assessee's own declared gross profit. The Tribunal also upheld the sustained additions towards unexplained cash deposits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat deficit stock as unaccounted sales and sustained the estimation of profit at 6.31% based on the assessee's own declared gross profit. The Tribunal also upheld the sustained additions towards unexplained cash deposits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat deficit stock as unaccounted sales and sustained the estimation of profit at 6.31% based on the assessee's own declared gross profit. The Tribunal also upheld the sustained additions towards unexplained cash deposits.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The reasoning was that the assessee had made out a case with relevant evidence, including MOUs, land syndication agreements, cancellation of agreements, and ledger extracts, to demonstrate that the credits in the bank account were out of the maturity of fixed deposits and transfers from other bank accounts. The Tribunal concluded that the additions made by the AO were based on incorrect findings and therefore could not be sustained. The assessee's appeal challenging the validity of the notice under Section 153A was dismissed as infructuous because the additions made by the AO under Section 68 had already been deleted on merits. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the assessment order became academic. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the cash deposits, including the refund of land syndication advances. The Assessing Officer erred in making additions as the sources were explained and supported by documentation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the cash deposits, including the refund of land syndication advances. The Assessing Officer erred in making additions as the sources were explained and supported by documentation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the cash deposits, including the refund of land syndication advances. The Assessing Officer erred in making additions as the sources were explained and supported by documentation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the cash deposits, including the refund of land syndication advances. The Assessing Officer erred in making additions as the sources were explained and supported by documentation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the cash deposits, including the refund of land syndication advances. The Assessing Officer erred in making additions as the sources were explained and supported by documentation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the cash deposits, including the refund of land syndication advances. The Assessing Officer erred in making additions as the sources were explained and supported by documentation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the cash deposits, including the refund of land syndication advances. The Assessing Officer erred in making additions as the sources were explained and supported by documentation.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that they had opted to resolve their dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The assessee had already filed Form-1 under the scheme on 27.12.2024, and Form 2 was issued by the Department on 10.01.2025. The Ld. DR also conceded to this request. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, the Tribunal provided an opportunity for the assessee to file a Miscellaneous Application to reinstate the case if their case is not accepted under the DTVSV, 2024 by the Revenue for any reason, within the prescribed time under the Act. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the cash deposits, including the refund of land syndication advances. The Assessing Officer erred in making additions as the sources were explained and supported by documentation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat deficit stock as unaccounted sales and sustained the estimation of profit at 6.31% based on the assessee's own declared gross profit. The Tribunal also upheld the sustained additions towards unexplained cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the cash deposits, including the refund of land syndication advances. The Assessing Officer erred in making additions as the sources were explained and supported by documentation.

The Tribunal noted that for the first issue concerning share capital, the documents on which the CIT(A) was satisfied were not produced before the AO. While the CIT(A) claimed to have called a remand report, the AO did not respond, and the CIT(A)'s order lacked details about the remand report. Furthermore, the assessee could not provide satisfactory replies regarding the receipt of share application money in earlier financial years and the delay in allotment. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside this issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to call for a remand report from the AO and pass an order accordingly. For the second issue regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 8% without considering that the assessee failed to produce supporting documents for all purchases, the proprietor of SSST denied the transactions, and the business dealing was only for a part of the year. Similar to the first issue, the CIT(A) failed to provide details of the remand report. Therefore, this issue was also set aside to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to call for a fresh remand report from the AO and pass an order as per law. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was correct and did not find any infirmity. Regarding the estimation of income at 8% on gross receipts, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was engaged in a construction and maintenance contract for a highway on a BOT basis. The receipts shown in the Profit and Loss account were merely matching entries for expenses incurred on ongoing road construction, which were part of the cost of work to be transferred to the balance sheet. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that no income was earned during the year as commercial operation of toll collection started only in March 2022. Therefore, the question of estimating income did not arise. The Tribunal also found that the assessee was not creating a capital asset of its own, as the ownership of the infrastructure facility belonged to NHAI. The amount received was not a 'capital work-in-progress' in the assessee's hands. The Tribunal found the matter squarely covered by CBDT Circular No. 09/2014. For AY 2018-2019, the Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of additions made under Section 40(a)(ia) and Section 43B, as the assessee had capitalized all expenses and did not claim them as revenue expenditure in the P&L account. Thus, no disallowance could be made.

The Tribunal held that the assessee JV is eligible to claim credit for the TDS deducted on gross contract receipts. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in withdrawing the TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was correct and did not find any infirmity. Regarding the estimation of income at 8% on gross receipts, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was engaged in a construction and maintenance contract for a highway on a BOT basis. The receipts shown in the Profit and Loss account were merely matching entries for expenses incurred on ongoing road construction, which were part of the cost of work to be transferred to the balance sheet. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that no income was earned during the year as commercial operation of toll collection started only in March 2022. Therefore, the question of estimating income did not arise. The Tribunal also found that the assessee was not creating a capital asset of its own, as the ownership of the infrastructure facility belonged to NHAI. The amount received was not a 'capital work-in-progress' in the assessee's hands. The Tribunal found the matter squarely covered by CBDT Circular No. 09/2014. For AY 2018-2019, the Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of additions made under Section 40(a)(ia) and Section 43B, as the assessee had capitalized all expenses and did not claim them as revenue expenditure in the P&L account. Thus, no disallowance could be made.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated years require incriminating material, which was not sufficiently demonstrated by the Revenue. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s relief was subject to AO's verification, which was subsequently done.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing evidence of the investor company's identity, creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transactions. The AO's reasons for addition, such as common addresses and directors, were found to be devoid of merit.

The Tribunal held that the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2009, which restricted the scope of Section 80IA for works contracts, was not applicable to the assessment years in question (prior to April 1, 2009). The Tribunal also referred to a previous identical case where the deduction was allowed.

The Tribunal held that if the JV passes on entire contract receipts to constituents without retaining profit, payments are not sub-contracts, and Section 194C is not applicable. Credit for TDS should go to constituents who offered income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the purchases genuine. It reasoned that the lack of e-way bills was justified as the goods were GST-exempt, and the direct delivery to farmers was a legitimate business practice for integration. Non-disclosure of related party transactions in Form 3CD was not considered fatal.

The Tribunal held that if the JV passes on entire contract receipts to constituents without retaining profit, payments are not sub-contracts, and Section 194C is not applicable. Credit for TDS should go to constituents who offered income.

The Tribunal found that for the first issue concerning share capital, the documents on which the CIT(A) was satisfied were not produced before the AO. While the CIT(A) called for a remand report, the AO did not respond. The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the amounts were received in earlier financial years (2013-14 and 2008-09) but could not provide a satisfactory bifurcation or explanation for the delay in allotment. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to call for a remand report from the AO and pass an order accordingly. For the second issue regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 8% without considering that the assessee failed to produce supporting documents for all purchases, the supplier denied the transactions, and the CIT(A) failed to mention the details of the remand report called. Consequently, this issue was also set aside to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to call for a fresh remand report from the AO and pass an order as per law. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the final determination of the additions.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid on customer advances was for the purpose of the assessee's business, as the funds received were utilized in the real estate development business. The Tribunal found that the AO erred in disallowing the finance charges without valid reasons and directed the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated years require incriminating material, which was not sufficiently demonstrated by the Revenue. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s relief was subject to AO's verification, which was subsequently done.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated years require incriminating material, which was not sufficiently demonstrated by the Revenue. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s relief was subject to AO's verification, which was subsequently done.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Following the Supreme Court's judgment in Pathapati Subba Reddy, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated years require incriminating material, which was not sufficiently demonstrated by the Revenue. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s relief was subject to AO's verification, which was subsequently done.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated years require incriminating material, which was not sufficiently demonstrated by the Revenue. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s relief was subject to AO's verification, which was subsequently done.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated years require incriminating material, which was not sufficiently demonstrated by the Revenue. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s relief was subject to AO's verification, which was subsequently done.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated years require incriminating material, which was not sufficiently demonstrated by the Revenue. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s relief was subject to AO's verification, which was subsequently done.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's involvement in creating infrastructure facilities, like dams and ponds, with associated risks, qualified them as a developer eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The nature of the project, even if not a typical BOT/BOOT model, did not preclude them from being considered a developer.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's assumptions regarding encoded figures were not substantiated by credible evidence. The seized documents lacked clarity, date, and denomination, and the AO failed to provide corroborative material to support the higher investment claims.