ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — August 2019

The ITAT dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was done in accordance with CBDT Circulars that set a monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claim that the loan was used to repay earlier loans for property acquisition was not brought to the revenue authorities' notice. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of commission was based on surmises and conjectures, as the revenue authorities did not examine the reasonableness of the commission rate in relation to the turnover. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions made.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not validly served on the assessee, making the reassessment void. Furthermore, even on merits, the transaction was not a taxable transfer in the hands of the assessee, as it was essentially a development agreement where the land owners retained their share.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circulars, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50.00 lakhs are not to be filed. Therefore, all the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect.

The ITAT dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was done in accordance with CBDT Circulars that set a monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment was valid, the addition should be treated as unexplained investment under Section 69, not capital gains. The Tribunal also rejected grounds related to the validity of notice and the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C.

The ITAT dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was done in accordance with CBDT Circulars that set a monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue.

The ITAT dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was done in accordance with CBDT Circulars that set a monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue.

The ITAT dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was done in accordance with CBDT Circulars that set a monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue.

The ITAT dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on CBDT circulars that set a monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the service of notice under Section 148 by affixture at an incorrect address, especially when the department had knowledge of the correct address, renders the notice invalid. Since the issuance and service of notice under Section 148 is a jurisdictional requirement, the reassessment proceedings are also invalid.

The ITAT dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was done in accordance with CBDT Circulars that set a monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, the assessee's appeals were allowed as the audit report was available at the time of assessment. However, for AY 2011-12, the appeal was dismissed due to non-maintenance of proper books of account, violating Section 44AB.

The Tribunal held that given the remote location of the aqua-culture farm and the nature of the business requiring instant cash purchases, invoking Section 40A(3) was not appropriate. The assessee had declared substantial profits and paid taxes accordingly.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment was valid, the addition should be treated as unexplained investment under Section 69, not capital gains. The Tribunal also rejected grounds related to the validity of notice and the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal fell within the exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, the assessee's appeals were allowed as the audit report was available at the time of assessment. However, for AY 2011-12, the appeal was dismissed due to non-maintenance of proper books of account, violating Section 44AB.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, the assessee's appeals were allowed as the audit report was available at the time of assessment. However, for AY 2011-12, the appeal was dismissed due to non-maintenance of proper books of account, violating Section 44AB.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, the assessee's appeals were allowed as the audit report was available at the time of assessment. However, for AY 2011-12, the appeal was dismissed due to non-maintenance of proper books of account, violating Section 44AB.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, the assessee's appeals were allowed as the audit report was available at the time of assessment. However, for AY 2011-12, the appeal was dismissed due to non-maintenance of proper books of account, violating Section 44AB.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, the assessee's appeals were allowed as the audit report was available at the time of assessment. However, for AY 2011-12, the appeal was dismissed due to non-maintenance of proper books of account, violating Section 44AB.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, the assessee's appeals were allowed as the audit report was available at the time of assessment. However, for AY 2011-12, the appeal was dismissed due to non-maintenance of proper books of account, violating Section 44AB.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, the assessee's appeals were allowed as the audit report was available at the time of assessment. However, for AY 2011-12, the appeal was dismissed due to non-maintenance of proper books of account, violating Section 44AB.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, the assessee's appeals were allowed as the audit report was available at the time of assessment. However, for AY 2011-12, the appeal was dismissed due to non-maintenance of proper books of account, violating Section 44AB.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, the assessee's appeals were allowed as the audit report was available at the time of assessment. However, for AY 2011-12, the appeal was dismissed due to non-maintenance of proper books of account, violating Section 44AB.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, the assessee's appeals were allowed as the audit report was available at the time of assessment. However, for AY 2011-12, the appeal was dismissed due to non-maintenance of proper books of account, violating Section 44AB.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, the assessee's appeals were allowed as the audit report was available at the time of assessment. However, for AY 2011-12, the appeal was dismissed due to non-maintenance of proper books of account, violating Section 44AB.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, the assessee's appeals were allowed as the audit report was available at the time of assessment. However, for AY 2011-12, the appeal was dismissed due to non-maintenance of proper books of account, violating Section 44AB.