ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal held that the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed/not maintainable due to the low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as it was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed/not maintainable, following CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which mandates not filing appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakh. The issues were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed/not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in the CBDT circular. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised in the appeal were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing the CBDT circular and the low tax effect. The issues raised in the appeal were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed/not maintainable, following CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakh should not be filed. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of service charges was not justified and directed the AO to allow the full claim. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow the notional loss claimed on share valuation.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of service charges was not justified and directed the AO to allow the full claim. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow the notional loss claimed on share valuation.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of service charges was not justified and directed the AO to allow the full claim. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow the notional loss claimed on share valuation.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of service charges was not justified as the expenditure was not proven to be personal or capital in nature. Regarding the share valuation loss, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision that the valuation was done to create a notional loss without basis.

The Tribunal held that the share transactions constituted business loss, not capital loss, and allowed set-off against other incomes. It also directed re-examination of house property interest and depreciation claims, while dismissing the car loan interest disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the share transactions constituted business loss, not capital loss, and allowed set-off against other incomes. It also directed re-examination of house property interest and depreciation claims, while dismissing the car loan interest disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of service charges for AY 2002-03 was incorrect and directed the AO to allow the claim in full for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow the notional loss claimed on share valuation in AY 2002-03.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed/not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, citing the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 due to the low tax effect. The issues raised in the appeal were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable based on the CBDT circular. The issues raised in the appeal were left open for future examination if they arise.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of service charges was not justified as the expenditure was not proven to be personal or capital in nature. Regarding the share valuation loss, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision that the valuation was done to create a notional loss without basis.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of service charges was not justified as the expenditure was not proven to be personal or capital in nature. Regarding the share valuation loss, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision that the valuation was done to create a notional loss without basis.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Suven Life Sciences as a comparable company due to functional dissimilarity. It also remanded the issue of provisions for bad and doubtful debts and bad debts to the TPO for suitable adjustments to bring companies on par.

The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) to consider the amended trust deed and grant approval under Section 80G after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing the CBDT Circular regarding the monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised in the appeal were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, citing the CBDT circular that mandates not filing appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakh. The issues raised in the appeal were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, following the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 due to the low tax effect. The issues raised in the appeal were left open for future examination if they arise.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed/not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of service charges for AY 2002-03 was incorrect and directed the AO to allow the claim in full for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow the notional loss claimed on share valuation in AY 2002-03.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of service charges for AY 2002-03 was incorrect and directed the AO to allow the claim in full for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow the notional loss claimed on share valuation in AY 2002-03.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot re-fix the amount of expenditure if it is incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, directing full allowance of service charges. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s disallowance of the notional loss on share valuation.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of service charges was not justified and directed the AO to allow the claim in full. Regarding the share valuation loss, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s enhancement, finding the valuation arbitrary and aimed at creating a notional loss.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of service charges for AY 2002-03 was incorrect and directed the AO to allow the claim in full for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow the notional loss claimed on share valuation in AY 2002-03.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of service charges was not justified and directed the AO to allow the full claim. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow the notional loss claimed on share valuation.

The Tribunal held that the withholding obligation for ESOP perquisites arises only upon the allotment of shares after the completion of all conditions, not merely upon the exercise of the option. The non-compete fee was also not considered accrued in the relevant assessment year.