ITAT Hyderabad sent back the disallowance of Rs. 25.93 crore on pension bond adjustments and Rs. 21.92 crore on pension trust payments for verification due to contradictory claims and ITR reporting errors.
Since the Form 10B was filed along with the return of income and within the due date of filing the return of income, the delay in filing the Form 10B could not be a ground for denial of the exemptions under Sections 11 and 12.
Hyderabad ITAT found reassessment unsustainable where 54F exemption was already examined in earlier scrutiny. As no new evidence emerged, reassessment under Section 147 was declared void.
The ITAT Hyderabad set aside the CIT(A)’s appellate order after finding it contained extensive facts and discussions unrelated to the assessee’s case, signaling non-application of mind. The matter was remanded for a fresh, speaking order after properly appreciating the factual matrix.
The ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 211-day delay in filing an appeal, finding the delay was justified because the NFAC (CIT(A)) sent all crucial notices to incorrect email addresses. The Tribunal restored the appeal for fresh hearing, ruling that the ex parte dismissal violated the principles of natural justice due to improper service of notice.
Hyderabad ITAT set aside a CIT(A) order, deleting an addition for cash deposits during the demonetisation period because the Assessing Officer (AO) ignored 28 debtor confirmations and audited accounts. The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 68 is invalid without rejecting the genuine books of account or verifying the provided evidence of business receipts.
ITAT Hyderabad held that reopening of assessment is invalid in as much as the approval/ sanction under section 151 of the Income Tax Act is granted in a mechanical manner. Further, reasons for reopening are based on on-application of mind and borrowed satisfaction. Accordingly, reopening quashed and appeal allowed.
Tribunal held that sale proceeds of fixtures sold with a flat could not be taxed separately under income from other sources and quashed the CIT’s Section 263 order.
ITAT Hyderabad held that penalty under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act duly leviable for non-payment of self-assessment tax even if later it was concluded that there was no tax payable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] doesn’t have jurisdiction to scrutinize the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition made by AO on account of TP adjustment is not sustainable.
