ITAT Hyderabad rules that once income is estimated by rejecting books, no further addition can be made; ₹31.55 lakh added in liquor business case deleted.
The ITAT Hyderabad quashed a penalty order imposed under Section 270A, ruling it was barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) because the order was passed in December 2021, six months after the statutory deadline of June 30, 2021. The Tribunal held that since the penalty was initiated in December 2020, the outer limit for passing the order had clearly expired.
In a key ruling, ITAT Hyderabad restored an appeal that the CIT(A) had dismissed for non-prosecution, as the NFAC was found to have incorrectly used an email address other than the one specified by the assessee in Form 35. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Courts mandate for a liberal approach to condoning the resulting 98-day delay and remanded the case for a decision on merits.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act is liable to be set aside and matter is remanded back to AO since additional evidences submitted by the assessee needs to be verified by lower authorities.
ITAT Hyderabad held that once it is proved that amount is invested towards purchase of new residential property then deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely because property got registered beyond stipulated period.
The ITAT Hyderabad in ITO Vs. SR Peddi Estates India Pvt. Ltd. confirmed the deletion of a ₹4.39 crore addition made during reassessment. The Tribunal ruled that bank credits
The Tribunal held that capital gains did not arise in the relevant year because the JDA explicitly stated possession was deemed given only upon handing over the landowners’ built-up share. This means Section 45(1) cannot be invoked until actual possession or consideration is received, overriding the AO’s reliance on stamp duty valuation.
ITAT allows S. 80-IA deduction, ruling that the Form 10CCB filing delay is a procedural lapse that can’t deny a substantive claim, maintaining the judicial view post-Finance Act 2020.
ITAT Hyderabad upholds remand for ex-parte reassessment, allowing the assessee to challenge the Section 148 notice validity based on the mandatory faceless procedure violation in fresh proceedings.
ITAT Hyderabad sustains unexplained investment based on a builder’s seized document with matching sale details but deletes gift addition, citing the Revenue’s failure to disprove the donor’s capacity.
