ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — January 2019

The Tribunal held that an appeal requires effective prosecution, not just filing. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not pressed and not maintainable, in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue also requested to withdraw these specific appeals.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable when exempt income is Nil, and Rule 8D can only be applied if there's difficulty in apportioning expenses. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for interest on late TDS, considering it compensatory rather than penal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, taking note of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue also requested to withdraw these specific appeals.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional grounds, citing a CBDT circular that allows Chapter VI-A deductions on profits enhanced by disallowances. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E fees could not be levied through Section 200A intimations for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the power to adjust for such fees under Section 200A was introduced only from that date. For returns filed after June 1, 2015, the levy is applicable.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E fees could not be levied through Section 200A intimations for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the power to adjust for such fees under Section 200A was introduced only from that date. For returns filed after June 1, 2015, the levy is applicable.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E fees could not be levied through Section 200A intimations for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the power to adjust for such fees under Section 200A was introduced only from that date. For returns filed after June 1, 2015, the levy is applicable.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional grounds, citing a CBDT circular that allows Chapter VI-A deductions on profits enhanced by disallowances. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were partly allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the recipient entities were exempt from tax under Section 10(25). However, this information was not submitted to the AO. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not pressed and not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue also requested to withdraw these specific appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue also requested to withdraw these specific appeals.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional grounds, citing a CBDT circular that allows Chapter VI-A deductions on profits enhanced by disallowances. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's order might be considered erroneous for lack of detailed inquiry into the agricultural activity and its similarity to a cited case, the CIT failed to establish that the order was prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal restored the AO's order.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 263 by not demonstrating how the assessment order was prejudicial to the revenue interest. The Commissioner cannot direct the Assessing Officer to re-examine an issue without establishing the error.

The Tribunal held that the issue of capital gains and Section 54F exemption had already been decided in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench for AY 2011-12. Therefore, the CIT(A) could not take a different view.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E fees could not be levied through Section 200A intimations for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the power to adjust for such fees under Section 200A was introduced only from that date. For returns filed after June 1, 2015, the levy is applicable.

The Tribunal held that estimation of income is justified when books of account are not maintained or are unreliable. However, based on consistent views of coordinate benches, a net profit rate of 3% of the cost of goods sold is considered reasonable for this line of business.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional grounds, citing a CBDT circular that allows Chapter VI-A deductions on profits enhanced by disallowances. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that Section 194A is not attracted when the contractee recovers interest on mobilization advances from running bills before releasing contract charges. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held liable for not deducting TDS in such a scenario.

The Tribunal, considering the CBDT Circular No.3/2018 directing withdrawal of appeals with tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs, allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, considering the CBDT Circular No.3/2018 and the Revenue's submission, permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal noted the CBDT's circular directing withdrawal of appeals with tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, considering the CBDT Circular No.3/2018 directing withdrawal of appeals with tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs, permitted the Revenue to withdraw its appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, considering the CBDT Circular No.3/2018 and the Revenue's submission regarding low tax effect, permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal, considering the CBDT Circular No.3/2018 and the Revenue's submission, permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal, considering the CBDT Circular No.3/2018 which directs withdrawal of appeals with tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs, permitted the Revenue to withdraw its appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, considering the CBDT Circular No.3/2018 and the Revenue's submission, permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had presented significant evidence, including letters from senior government officials, suggesting the State Government was conducting the liquor trade, not the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted this evidence and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had presented significant evidence, including letters from senior government officials, suggesting the State Government was conducting the liquor trade, not the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted this evidence and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's appeals due to genuine reasons. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal found that some payments were not substantiated by evidence and that certain amounts were already taxed in the hands of another related entity, thus avoiding double taxation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's appeals due to genuine reasons. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal found that some payments were not substantiated by evidence and that certain amounts were already taxed in the hands of another related entity, thus avoiding double taxation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's appeals due to genuine reasons. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal found that some payments were not substantiated by evidence and that certain amounts were already taxed in the hands of another related entity, thus avoiding double taxation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's appeals due to genuine reasons. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal found that some payments were not substantiated by evidence and that certain amounts were already taxed in the hands of another related entity, thus avoiding double taxation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's appeals due to genuine reasons. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal found that some payments were not substantiated by evidence and that certain amounts were already taxed in the hands of another related entity, thus avoiding double taxation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's appeals due to genuine reasons. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal found that some payments were not substantiated by evidence and that certain amounts were already taxed in the hands of another related entity, thus avoiding double taxation.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not follow the previous ITAT directions to obtain a remand report from the AO. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided the sale agreement and subsequent sale deeds, which were accepted by the department. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo reconsideration.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and found that the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney was not for property transfer and the ratio of holdings between co-parties was unclear. The assessee's claim of being a facilitator appeared acceptable.

The Tribunal held that family members in Indian society commonly contribute to wedding expenses. Given that the daughters had independent sources of income and had provided salary slips as evidence, their contributions were considered sufficiently explained.