ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — September 2018

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR vs B PENCHALA NARASIMHULU, TADIPATRI, TADIPATRI

ITA 1958/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs N MADHUSUDHANA, TADIPATRI, TADIPATRI

ITA 1959/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs V MASTAN VALI, HYDERABAD

ITA 1962/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs B SREENIVASULU, TADIPATRI

ITA 1963/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs V SANJEEVAIAH, TADIPATRI

ITA 1968/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs Y RAMULU, TADIPATRI

ITA 1969/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTHAPUR vs B KULLAYAPPA, TADIPATRI

ITA 1970/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

BANDARI KULLAYAPPA, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

ITA 1326/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

KONDA MADHU KUMAR, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

ITA 1332/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

MOOTI RAMA SUBBAIAH, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

ITA 1333/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

MOOTI RAMA SUBBAIAH, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

ITA 1334/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

NAGESWARA REDDYPALLI, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

ITA 1338/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

VIKKISALA SOMUSUNDAR, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-1, PRODDATUR, PRODDATUR

ITA 1342/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

BASAPPAGARI PENCHALA NARASIMHULU, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

ITA 1343/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

KARIMISETTY RANGAIAH, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

ITA 1344/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

KASULA SURESH, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-1, PRODDATUR, PRODDATUR

ITA 1346/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

BANDARU LAKSHMI NARAYANA, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

ITA 1352/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

KOMALI KHADAR, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

ITA 1358/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

SALVADI SEKHAR, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

ITA 1363/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

YADAVA CHANDRA SEKHAR, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

ITA 1364/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

JYOTHI PRASAD JOTTI, TADIPATRI,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR

ITA 1367/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs R NAGESWARA, TADIPATRI

ITA 1957/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTHAPUR vs B NAGA RANGAIAH, TADIPATRI

ITA 1967/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO could not simultaneously conclude that income was taxable in the hands of the deductor and also that it had escaped assessment in the hands of the deductee-assessees. Therefore, the reassessment for AY 2009-10 was invalid.

SREENATH KONNIPATI,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 775/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2018AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated or examined the documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, to ensure justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the AO for a de novo assessment.

RAMESH TUTHURU,MEDAK vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

ITA 781/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2018AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for a decision on merits. This was because the assessee claimed not to have received notices due to a change of address, leading to an ex-parte decision.

IMPACT METALAS LIMITED, MEDAK DIST.,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 338/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2018AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that lease rental income from letting out property without services is income from house property, not business income. Interest on loans utilized for business purposes is allowable as a business expenditure. Advances to sister concerns require further verification by the AO.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs TCI CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 2007/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2018AY 2011-12Dismissed

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

PROGRESS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 16(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 312/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2018AY 2009-10Withdrawn

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.