Loading ITAT cases…
913 tribunal orders from the Hyderabad bench in 2019.
Showing 40 of 913 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for perquisite value of furniture, finding it was the assessee's own accommodation. For the cash credits, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's alternative claim that they were trade advances and directed the AO to estimate income on these credits as turnover.
The Tribunal held that while the rejection of books of accounts and estimation of income were justified, the rate of estimation needed adjustment. Following precedent, the net profit was directed to be estimated at 3% of the cost of goods sold.
The Tribunal found the nature of the assessee's work unclear and remitted the matter back to the AO for a de novo consideration. The AO is to pass a speaking order detailing the nature and scope of the contractual work before deciding the eligibility for deduction.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea for a fresh hearing and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings to avoid an ex-parte decision.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without proper opportunity. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration with one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found the nature of the assessee's work unclear and remitted the matter back to the AO for a de novo consideration. The AO is to pass a speaking order detailing the nature and scope of the contractual work before deciding the eligibility for deduction.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without proper opportunity. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration with one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found the nature of the assessee's work unclear and remitted the matter back to the AO for a de novo consideration. The AO is to pass a speaking order detailing the nature and scope of the contractual work before deciding the eligibility for deduction.
The Tribunal held that if the payments included reimbursement for material and transportation, those components would not attract TDS provisions. However, the disallowance for labour charges would apply if the assessee failed to prove such reimbursements.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost and cooperating with the AO.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of 6% expenditure disallowance back to the AO for a categorical finding on the applicability of Section 44AE. The addition of Rs. 2 lakhs for a loan was also remitted for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on moulds, given their short lifespan of approximately 12 months due to wear and tear in high-temperature manufacturing, should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions that treated expenditure on moulds as revenue in nature.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow its previous directions regarding bad debts and telescoping of expenses. It directed the AO to allow 30% of gross advances and interest as bad debts and to telescope disallowed commission expenses as sources for fresh advances.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow its previous directions regarding bad debts and telescoping of expenses. It directed the AO to allow 30% of gross advances and interest as bad debts and to telescope disallowed commission expenses as sources for fresh advances.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on moulds, given their short lifespan of approximately 12 months due to wear and tear in high-temperature manufacturing, should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions that treated expenditure on moulds as revenue in nature.
The Tribunal held that the omissions and errors were due to recent computerization and modernization, and there was no wilful default on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the omissions and errors were due to recent computerization and modernization, and there was no wilful default on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the omissions and errors were due to recent computerization and modernization, and there was no wilful default on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal deleted the additions related to hand loans from Syed Khaja Faizuddin and Moosa Khaleem Khan, finding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors proved through documentary evidence and banking channels. The addition related to Mohd Abdul Kareem was also partly deleted.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on moulds, given their short lifespan of approximately 12 months due to wear and tear in high-temperature manufacturing, should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions that treated expenditure on moulds as revenue in nature.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow its previous directions regarding bad debts and telescoping of expenses. It directed the AO to allow 30% of gross advances and interest as bad debts and to telescope disallowed commission expenses as sources for fresh advances.
The Tribunal held that the omissions and errors were due to recent computerization and modernization, and there was no wilful default on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of 6% expenditure disallowance back to the AO for a categorical finding on the applicability of Section 44AE. The addition of Rs. 2 lakhs for a loan was also remitted for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow its previous directions regarding bad debts and telescoping of expenses. It directed the AO to allow 30% of gross advances and interest as bad debts and to telescope disallowed commission expenses as sources for fresh advances.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea for a fresh hearing, noting that the CIT(A) had indeed passed an ex-parte order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow its previous directions regarding bad debts and telescoping of expenses. It directed the AO to allow 30% of gross advances and interest as bad debts and to telescope disallowed commission expenses as sources for fresh advances.
The Tribunal held that the omissions and errors were due to recent computerization and modernization, and there was no wilful default on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on moulds, given their short lifespan of approximately 12 months due to wear and tear in high-temperature manufacturing, should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions that treated expenditure on moulds as revenue in nature.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of 6% expenditure disallowance back to the AO for a categorical finding on the applicability of Section 44AE. The addition of Rs. 2 lakhs for a loan was also remitted for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution, citing the principle that an appeal requires effective pursuit, not just filing. No submissions or evidence were presented on merits.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on moulds, given their short lifespan of approximately 12 months due to wear and tear in high-temperature manufacturing, should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions that treated expenditure on moulds as revenue in nature.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technical grounds. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the omissions and errors were due to recent computerization and modernization, not wilful default. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271FA was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the omissions and errors were due to recent computerization and modernization, not wilful default. Therefore, considering the provisions of Section 273B, the penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission for a fresh opportunity, considering it in the interest of justice. The matter was remitted back to the AO to provide an opportunity for hearing and to refer the property valuation to the DVO if requested by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a proper opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The matter was remanded to the AO for a decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the unfortunate circumstances. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the 19-day delay in filing the appeal before it. It also condoned the 99-day delay before the CIT(A), finding the reason for delay (overseas project) to be reasonable and supported by evidence.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A), detailed written submissions were filed. The CIT(A) should have addressed these submissions. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conclusively prove that transactions were arranged to produce more than ordinary profits. Therefore, the disallowance of part of the deduction claimed under Section 10A was not justified.