ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — October 2020

The Tribunal remanded all quantum and penalty appeals back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present all relevant documents. The CIT(A) is directed to re-adjudicate the appeals on merits after verification.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect as per CBDT circulars. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous and also dismissed.

The Tribunal remanded the quantum appeals to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present all documents. The penalty appeals were also remanded to be adjudicated after the quantum appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) on merits, and given the Supreme Court's decision in Palam Gas Service, the issue needed to be remanded. Similarly, the issues of sundry creditors and income estimation were also remanded for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits and the assessee did not appear. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after the assessee presents all relevant material.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that expenses incurred for loan recovery which became bad debts are allowable as business expenses. The revenue failed to provide evidence to rebut this finding.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal to avail the benefits of the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to refile the appeal if not admitted into the scheme.

The Tribunal remanded the quantum appeals to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present all documents. The penalty appeals were also remanded to be adjudicated after the quantum appeals.

The Tribunal remanded the quantum appeals to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present all documents. The penalty appeals were also remanded to be adjudicated after the quantum appeals.

The Tribunal remanded the quantum appeals to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present all documents. The penalty appeals were also remanded to be adjudicated after the quantum appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) on merits, and given the Supreme Court's decision in Palam Gas Service, the issue needed to be remanded. Similarly, the issues of sundry creditors and income estimation were also remanded for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal decided to provide the assessees with another opportunity to establish their claim by remitting the matter back to the AO for de novo consideration. The AO was directed to admit and examine fresh evidence.

The ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on the low tax effect of the appeal, which was below the threshold stipulated by CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not verify documents submitted by the assessee, including a cancellation deed and Lok Adalat proceedings, which occurred after the assessment order. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for reconsideration in light of these documents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not the owner of the property, as evidenced by the statement of one of the original landowners who confirmed receiving the sale consideration. Therefore, no capital gains arose in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration, allowing the assessee another opportunity to represent her case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not verified crucial documents, including a cancellation deed and court proceedings, which were filed after the assessment order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for reconsideration in light of these documents.

The Tribunal held that the omission of interest income was an inadvertent error and not a wilful concealment of income. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Price Water House Coopers Pvt Ltd vs. CIT.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the revenue's argument that opportunities were provided, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and considering the assessee's non-resident status, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the omission of interest income was an inadvertent error and not a wilful concealment of income. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Price Water House Coopers Pvt Ltd vs. CIT.

The Tribunal held that the omission of interest income was an inadvertent error and not a wilful concealment of income. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Price Water House Coopers Pvt Ltd vs. CIT.

The Tribunal held that the omission of interest income was an inadvertent error and not a wilful concealment of income. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Price Water House Coopers Pvt Ltd vs. CIT.

The Tribunal decided to provide the assessees with another opportunity to establish their claim by remitting the matter back to the AO for de novo consideration. The AO was directed to admit and examine fresh evidence.