ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's inability to attend hearings but noted that opportunities were provided. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh consideration, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim for adjustment due to higher employee costs compared to comparables. It also noted that the selection and exclusion of comparable companies were contentious and required further examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had an implicit obligation to pay the revised price, and the liability had accrued during the relevant assessment years. Therefore, the provision made by the assessee was allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal, while noting the lack of appreciation for the reason provided, decided to remit the matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration in the interest of justice. The assessee was granted liberty to produce evidence, but cautioned to cooperate in future proceedings.

The Tribunal, while noting the lack of appreciation for the reason provided, decided to remit the matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration in the interest of justice. The assessee was granted liberty to produce evidence, with a caution for future cooperation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. However, it found that the CIT(A) had provided opportunities for hearing, which the assessee failed to attend, leading to an ex-parte order.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the assessee failed to appear despite several opportunities. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had an implicit obligation to pay the revised price, and the liability had accrued during the relevant assessment years. Therefore, the provision made by the assessee was allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had an implicit obligation to pay the revised price, and the liability had accrued during the relevant assessment years. Therefore, the provision made by the assessee was allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal, while noting the lack of appreciation for the reason provided, decided to remit the matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration in the interest of justice. The assessee was granted liberty to produce evidence, with a caution for future cooperation.

The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's submission that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) on multiple dates, leading to an ex-parte order. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. While acknowledging that several opportunities were given, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that an ex-parte order was passed. While acknowledging the revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) in the interest of justice to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided multiple hearing dates, and 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 to cooperate.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the CIT(A) had to pass an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-appearance. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence for the fixed asset additions. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to submit relevant material.

The Tribunal held that statutory disallowances should be considered as business profits eligible for deduction under Section 10A, following a consistent view of the Tribunal and a CBDT circular. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of communication expenses and insurance was to be decided afresh by the assessing officer.

The Tribunal followed its own earlier orders and High Court decisions, holding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of genuine commission payments for business expediency. The disallowance was deleted.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal accepted that some deposits were from agricultural income, acknowledging the assessee's explanation of withdrawals and redeposits. However, it also considered the assessee's prior statement about real estate business income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's ill health. It held that the evidence regarding agricultural income was not properly considered by the lower authorities and set aside the issue to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal found that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte. Considering the significant addition, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 11 should be allowed for assessment years prior to the date of registration if the appeals were pending at the time of registration, following the proviso to Section 12A(2). The assessee satisfied the conditions for exemption.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the chit dividend income cannot be brought to tax as the overall result of the chit fund transaction for the entire period was a loss. Therefore, the appeal for AY 2004-05 was allowed, and the appeal for AY 2005-06 was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the chit dividend income cannot be brought to tax as the overall result of the chit fund transaction for the entire period was a loss. Therefore, the appeal for AY 2004-05 was allowed, and the appeal for AY 2005-06 was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that since the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed by the Tribunal, the subsequent order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) r.w.s 263 was invalid. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's appeal was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the assessments and the first appeal were decided ex-parte and that the facts considered by the AO were incorrect. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal held that receipts pertaining to AY 2009-10 could not be taxed in AY 2010-11. It also found that while one gift was unproven, another was partially accepted based on the donor's agricultural income, leading to partial deletion of additions.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had submitted some details before the AO during remand, the CIT(A) had not considered them. The Tribunal directed the assessee to file all relevant material before the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal accepted that some deposits were from agricultural income, acknowledging the assessee's explanation of withdrawals and redeposits. However, it also considered the assessee's prior statement about real estate business income.

The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 11 should be allowed for assessment years prior to the date of registration if the appeals were pending at the time of registration, following the proviso to Section 12A(2). The assessee satisfied the conditions for exemption.

The Tribunal found that the assessments and the first appeal were decided ex-parte and that the facts considered by the AO were incorrect. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the quantum addition as the assessee failed to provide evidence for the Rs. 5 Lakhs receipt. However, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was set aside due to a defective notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the quantum addition as the assessee failed to provide evidence for the Rs. 5 Lakhs receipt. However, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was set aside due to a defective notice.

The Tribunal held that lease rentals paid by the assessee are eligible for deduction as revenue expenditure. Following Supreme Court and Rajasthan High Court precedents, the Tribunal found that the lessor remains the owner of the asset until full payment, and the lease rental is for the use of the asset.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 Lakhs and did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, both appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it was noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT circulars, the tax limit for filing appeals by the Revenue is Rs. 50 Lakhs. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below this limit, they were not maintainable.

The Tribunal deleted the income enhanced by the CIT(A) under Section 68, stating it was beyond appellate powers. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the exempt income earned. The revenue's appeal regarding goodwill amortization was dismissed.

The ITAT held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it was below the Rs. 50 Lakhs limit stipulated by CBDT circulars. The tribunal dismissed the appeal on this ground.

The Tribunal deleted the income enhanced by the CIT(A) under Section 68, holding that the CIT(A) could not bring a new source of income to tax. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the exempt income earned during the year.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they did not meet the minimum tax effect threshold for filing appeals as per CBDT circulars. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 Lakhs and did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, both appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT circulars, the tax limit for filing appeals by the Revenue is Rs. 50 Lakhs. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below this limit, they were not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT circulars, the tax limit for filing appeals by the Revenue is Rs. 50 Lakhs. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below this limit, they were not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT circulars, the tax limit for filing appeals by the Revenue is Rs. 50 Lakhs. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below this limit, they were not maintainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it was noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it was noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal.