ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — October 2019

The Tribunal held that property inherited after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, devolves on heirs in their individual capacity, not as HUF property. Claims for deductions under Sections 54F and 54B were set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal held that property inherited after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, devolves on heirs in their individual capacity, not as HUF property. Claims for deductions under Sections 54F and 54B were set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal held that property inherited after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, devolves on heirs in their individual capacity, not as HUF property. Claims for deductions under Sections 54F and 54B were set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal held that property inherited after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, devolves on heirs in their individual capacity, not as HUF property. Claims for deductions under Sections 54F and 54B were set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal held that property inherited after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, devolves on heirs in their individual capacity, not as HUF property. Claims for deductions under Sections 54F and 54B were set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal held that property inherited after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, devolves on heirs in their individual capacity, not as HUF property. Claims for deductions under Sections 54F and 54B were set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal held that property inherited after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, devolves on heirs in their individual capacity, not as HUF property. Claims for deductions under Sections 54F and 54B were set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal held that property inherited after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, devolves on heirs in their individual capacity, not as HUF property. Claims for deductions under Sections 54F and 54B were set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal held that property inherited after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, devolves on heirs in their individual capacity, not as HUF property. Claims for deductions under Sections 54F and 54B were set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal held that property inherited after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, devolves on heirs in their individual capacity, not as HUF property. Claims for deductions under Sections 54F and 54B were set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal held that property inherited after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, devolves on heirs in their individual capacity, not as HUF property. Claims for deductions under Sections 54F and 54B were set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal held that property inherited after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, devolves on heirs in their individual capacity, not as HUF property. Claims for deductions under Sections 54F and 54B were set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal held that property inherited after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, devolves on heirs in their individual capacity, not as HUF property. Claims for deductions under Sections 54F and 54B were set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal held that property inherited after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, devolves on heirs in their individual capacity, not as HUF property. Claims for deductions under Sections 54F and 54B were set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal held that property inherited after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, devolves on heirs in their individual capacity, not as HUF property. Claims for deductions under Sections 54F and 54B were set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B is not applicable if books of account are not maintained, as the requirement for audit does not arise. It further held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when income is determined on an estimated basis.

The Tribunal held that property inherited after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, devolves on heirs in their individual capacity, not as HUF property. Claims for deductions under Sections 54F and 54B were set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 8% of turnover, noting the assessee's failure to maintain books of account. This aligns with the presumptive taxation provisions under Section 44AD.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to furnish complete details and prove the genuineness of expenses, and had agreed to the disallowance before the AO, there was no merit in the appeal.

The Tribunal held that CCDs are hybrid instruments in nature, akin to equity, and cannot be treated as loans. Following its own prior decisions and High Court rulings, the Tribunal found that the TPO erred in treating CCDs as loans and applying LIBOR as the benchmark rate.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for hearing, but the assessee failed to appear. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration, with a caution to the assessee.

The Tribunal directed that a portion of the cash credit be treated as accumulated capital, reducing the unexplained investment. It also reduced the penalty amount, sustaining it only for one instance of non-compliance where notice receipt was acknowledged.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) did not err in disposing of the appeal ex-parte as sufficient opportunities were given. However, the addition under Section 68 for Rs. 74,75,000 was deleted as it pertained to a change in shareholding, not fresh capital. The addition for Rs. 6,40,000 was also deleted after reviewing the provided documents. The sub-contract payment issue was remanded to the AO for fresh verification. The addition for additional profit was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order on merits, even in ex-parte cases. Since the CIT(A) failed to do so, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not referring the matter to the DVO for valuation as mandated by Section 50C(2) when requested by the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration and DVO valuation.

The Tribunal held that making a wrong claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found that the assessee's claim, even if incorrect, did not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal in limine but should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to file the appeal electronically. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal directed that a portion of the cash credit be treated as accumulated capital, reducing the unexplained investment. It also reduced the penalty amount, sustaining it only for one instance of non-compliance where notice receipt was acknowledged.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and subsequent clarifications, appeals with a tax effect below the revised monetary limits are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and subsequent clarifications, appeals with a tax effect below the revised monetary limits are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and subsequent clarifications, appeals with a tax effect below the revised monetary limits are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and subsequent clarifications, appeals with a tax effect below the revised monetary limits are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and subsequent clarifications, appeals with a tax effect below the revised monetary limits are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C without recording the satisfaction in the case of the searched person is invalid. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 153C and the assessments framed thereunder were quashed.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the matter back, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal in limine on technical grounds. Instead, the assessee should have been given an opportunity to e-file the appeal.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the matter back, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s reason for rejection was irrelevant and that the focus should be on the charitable objectives of the trust. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and granted registration under Section 12A.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C without recording the satisfaction in the case of the searched person is invalid. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 153C and the assessments framed thereunder were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C without recording the satisfaction in the case of the searched person is invalid. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 153C and the assessments framed thereunder were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C without recording the satisfaction in the case of the searched person is invalid. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 153C and the assessments framed thereunder were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C without recording the satisfaction in the case of the searched person is invalid. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 153C and the assessments framed thereunder were quashed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to admit the appeal and adjudicate the issues on merit after verifying the payment of admitted tax.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's 12A registration was valid and its activities fell under the preservation of environment limb of Section 2(15). Therefore, the residual income was not taxable.

The Tribunal noted that the issues were already decided in prior appeals. Consequently, the consequential orders passed by the AO and the subsequent appellate orders of the CIT(A) did not survive.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal noted that the issues were already decided in prior appeals. Consequently, the consequential orders passed by the AO and the subsequent appellate orders of the CIT(A) did not survive.

The Tribunal acknowledged the mandatory nature of e-filing but, considering it was an early year for the amended rules and the assessee's plea, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A). This is conditional on the assessee filing the appeal electronically within 30 days.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) did not conduct sufficient inquiries to disprove the assessee's explanation of receiving marriage gifts. The Tribunal also considered the possibility that the funds might have been undisclosed income of a third party being routed through the assessee.

The Tribunal, considering the assessees' claim of residing outside Hyderabad and relying on Section 273B, granted them the benefit of doubt. It found a reasonable cause for their failure to appear before the AO.