ITAT Hyderabad held that constituent members of a JV or Consortium can claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) when they actually execute infrastructure projects and bear the associated risks. The Tribunal ruled that the JV structure formed only for bidding does not defeat eligibility.
The Hyderabad ITAT held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because the supplier failed to respond to a notice under Section 133(6). The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding supporting invoices, confirmations, and banking records on record.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition of Rs. 13 lakh under Section 69A through rectification proceedings exceeded the scope of Section 154. The Tribunal ruled that issues requiring detailed factual examination cannot be treated as mistakes apparent from record.
ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 182-day delay in filing the appeal after accepting medical evidence relating to failed liver transplantation and continuous dialysis treatment.
Tribunal reiterated that credits brought forward from earlier financial years cannot ordinarily be taxed under Section 68 in subsequent years. The matter was remanded for verification because the assessee had not furnished complete creditor details.
ITAT Hyderabad held that assessment orders passed pursuant to earlier remand directions were barred by limitation under Section 153. The Tribunal set aside all consequential transfer pricing assessment orders dated 06.12.2024.
The Tribunal held that unsigned documents and Tally entries seized from a developer’s premises cannot justify additions without corroborative evidence. It ruled that no addition can survive merely on third-party material lacking proof of actual cash movement.
The Hyderabad ITAT held that only the actual period lost during the limitation period can be excluded under Explanation-1 to Section 153. It ruled that the assessment order passed beyond the permissible period was invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that the word purchase under Section 54 must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation. Genuine investment in a residential property within the prescribed period can qualify for exemption even without a registered conveyance deed.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to properly verify the genuineness of a cancelled property sale transaction before accepting the assessee’s claim of no capital gains. It ruled that lack of inquiry justified revision under Section 263.
