ITAT Hyderabad held that CIT(A)/ NFAC failed to consider circular no. F.173/193/2019-ITA-1 dated 23.04.2019 and subsequent circular No.2/2020 vide F.No.197/55/2018-ITA-I dated 03.01.2020 which are issued by CBDT and the same is binding on the revenue authorities. Accordingly, matter restored.
Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) in case of delay in filing Form 67
ITAT Hyderabad held that expenditure incurred for construction/acquisition of new facility which was subsequently abandoned at work-in-progress stage was allowable in year of write off as incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of business.
Held that there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure but the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the assets so capitalized and put to use for the software services related to health care.
ITAT Hyderabad held that if the assessee is not entitled to claim the loss of investment as bad debts, the same cannot be claimed as business loss as per his sweet will.
Assessee hospital was not entitled for registration under section 12A as it was charging on the basis of commercial rates from the patients and it had failed to demonstrate that the charges / fee charged by it were on a reasonable markup on the cost.
The ITAT allowed appeal of the assesse wherein the LD. CIT(E) have rejected registration under 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961, by observing that various allegations made by the ld.CIT(E) while denying registration u/s. 12A of the I.T.Act requires verification and proper appreciation of facts by the ld. CIT(E). In addition, it was also observed that the matter requires a revisit to the file of the PCIT for deciding the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
ITAT Hyderabad held that AO has neither made any enquiry nor asked any questions to the assessee nor any information was called for. Therefore, the order passed by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Hyderabad held that deciding any ground based on any additional evidence before CIT(A), without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, is untenable in law. CIT(A) needs to mandatorily given an opportunity to AO to examine the additional evidence.
ITAT Hyderabad held that merely because the assessee took the land on lease for conducting their research operations to produce the foundation seeds of the hybrid varieties, such a lease cannot ipso facto make the operations of the assessee as contract farming.
