ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — October 2019

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.

The Tribunal acknowledged the CIT(A)'s position in passing an ex-parte order due to non-appearance. However, taking a lenient view in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10, TDS was not required on interest payments not exceeding Rs. 10,000/- as per Section 194A(3)(i). Additionally, the AO could not demand Form 15G/15H after 7 years from the end of the financial year.

The Tribunal held that the AO should have referred the property to the DVO for valuation before invoking Section 50C. The ex-parte order of the AO was not justified without proper valuation.

The Tribunal held that MAT credit cannot be granted based on the mere expectation of a favorable judgment for Section 10B deduction. However, it noted that consequential orders must be passed if the appellate authority rules in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases and creditors could not be treated as bogus, the defective nature of goods and non-receipt of payment by vendors indicated a cessation of liability in the relevant year. Therefore, the amount should be taxed as income from cessation of liability.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding merit in the assessee's arguments. The Tribunal noted its consistent stance in favour of the assessee on this issue in prior years.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked for income already declared in the revised return and accepted by the department. Therefore, the penalty levied on such income is deleted.

The Tribunal held that for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10, TDS was not required on interest payments not exceeding Rs. 10,000/- as per Section 194A(3)(i). Additionally, the AO could not demand Form 15G/15H after 7 years from the end of the financial year.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have obtained a remand report from the AO before deciding on the additional evidence. As the Tribunal has the power to remit, the matter is sent back to the AO for verification of the genuineness of purchases and creditors.

The CIT(A) granted partial relief, reducing the penalty. The Tribunal is hearing appeals from both the Revenue and the assessee regarding the penalty amount.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on CBDT circulars that set a minimum tax effect of Rs. 50.00 lakhs for Revenue appeals to the Tribunal.

The ITAT held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. The appeals were dismissed on account of low tax effect.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding lack of proper opportunity, despite the Revenue's claim of multiple opportunities. In the interest of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding lack of proper opportunity, despite the Revenue's claim of multiple opportunities. In the interest of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding lack of proper opportunity, despite the Revenue's claim of multiple opportunities. In the interest of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the relief granted by the CIT(A) was less than the monetary limit prescribed by Circular No. 17/2019 for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and despite the assessee's lack of cooperation, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to cooperate promptly in future proceedings.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration on merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on CBDT circulars that set a minimum tax effect of Rs. 50.00 lakhs for appeals to the Tribunal, which was not met in this case.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT circulars which stipulate a minimum tax effect for appeals to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for hearing. However, to provide a final opportunity to the assessee, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal considered the appeal by the Revenue against the partial relief granted by the CIT(A) and the cross-objection/appeal by the assessee against the confirmed penalty. The judgment details the penalty levied and the subsequent partial relief granted by the CIT(A).

The ITAT held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. The appeals were dismissed on account of low tax effect.