ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — March 2020

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the initial onus by providing invoices, confirmations, stock entries, and making payments through cheques. The Revenue failed to discharge its onus to prove the transactions were bogus, as the AO relied on surmises and did not conduct thorough investigations.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the initial onus by providing invoices, confirmations, stock entries, and making payments through cheques. The Revenue failed to discharge its onus to prove the transactions were bogus, as the AO relied on surmises and did not conduct thorough investigations.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the initial onus by providing invoices, confirmations, stock entries, and making payments through cheques. The Revenue failed to discharge its onus to prove the transactions were bogus, as the AO relied on surmises and did not conduct thorough investigations.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the initial onus by providing invoices, confirmations, stock entries, and making payments through cheques. The Revenue failed to discharge its onus to prove the transactions were bogus, as the AO relied on surmises and did not conduct thorough investigations.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the initial onus by providing invoices, confirmations, stock entries, and making payments through cheques. The Revenue failed to discharge its onus to prove the transactions were bogus, as the AO relied on surmises and did not conduct thorough investigations.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the recipient had included the interest in its income. However, due to the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order and the need for factual verification, the matter was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the initial onus by providing invoices, confirmations, stock entries, and making payments through cheques. The Revenue failed to discharge its onus to prove the transactions were bogus, as the AO relied on surmises and did not conduct thorough investigations.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by reducing the estimated GP from 25% to 22% of turnover, considering the assessee's business model. The additions related to unsecured loans and cash payments were upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the AO's disallowance of 20% expenditure due to lack of documentation, remitted the issue of sundry creditors back to the AO for fresh consideration, and deleted the additions related to service tax and difference in turnover, finding the CIT(A)'s order correct on these points.

The Tribunal held that the entire addition of Rs. 10,08,000/- should be deleted, considering the assessee's profession, family background, and a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs received from a third party.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, considering the assessee's financial position and the nature of the addition. However, it found merit in the Revenue's argument regarding the CIT(A) proceedings and remitted the matter back for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illness. While acknowledging that the assessee had not cooperated earlier, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's submissions regarding the assessee's non-appearance. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity for a hearing.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) on multiple occasions. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that sufficient opportunities were provided to the assessee, who failed to produce cogent materials to justify the cash deposits. However, considering the assessee's prayer and his status as a petty salary earner, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh consideration.