ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — January 2021

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 126 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the peculiar circumstances and the gravity of the averments made. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 120 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to late communication of the assessment order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme application was in process. The assessee was granted liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal if the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstatement if the Vivad se Vishwas application was rejected.

The Tribunal held that rent derived from agricultural land used for agricultural purposes is considered agricultural income as per Section 2(1A)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The nature of the crop being commercial does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the income as agricultural income.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstatement if the Vivad se Vishwas application was rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal if the Vivad se Vishwas application was rejected.

The Tribunal held that it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to make a reference under Section 50C(2) even if the taxpayer does not raise objections. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since Form-3 had already been issued, keeping the appeals pending served no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantive justice over technicalities. The issue of Section 68 additions was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with the assessees undertaking to prove the source of credits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantive justice over technicalities. The issue of Section 68 additions was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with the assessees undertaking to prove the source of credits.

The Tribunal held that since Form-3 had already been issued, keeping the appeals pending served no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantive justice over technicalities. The issue of Section 68 additions was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with the assessees undertaking to prove the source of credits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantive justice over technicalities. The issue of Section 68 additions was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with the assessees undertaking to prove the source of credits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in annulling the assessment and that the rectification order did not supersede the regular assessment. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the agricultural income claim.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in annulling the assessment and that the rectification order did not supersede the regular assessment. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the agricultural income claim.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantive justice over technicalities. The issue of Section 68 additions was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with the assessees undertaking to prove the source of credits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantive justice over technicalities. The issue of Section 68 additions was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with the assessees undertaking to prove the source of credits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantive justice over technicalities. The issue of Section 68 additions was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with the assessees undertaking to prove the source of credits.

The Tribunal held that since Form-3 had already been issued, keeping the appeals pending served no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since Form-3 had already been issued, keeping the appeals pending served no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since Form-3 had already been issued, keeping the appeals pending served no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since Form-3 had already been issued, keeping the appeals pending served no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice, despite the assessee's failure to provide convincing evidence for the delay. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeals. It was clarified that if the assessee's case is not accepted under the Vivad-se-Viswas scheme, they can file a miscellaneous petition to reinstate the appeals.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to obtain a valuation report from a registered valuer to ascertain the true market value of the property. The addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was to be made based on this verified valuation.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of interest expenditure. It found that the assessee had debited the interest, shown TDS as a liability, and the tax audit report also noted the non-remittance of TDS.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeals, noting the Revenue's concession. It also clarified that the assessee could seek reinstatement if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme application was not accepted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their cases under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed with the liberty to seek revival if the settlement is rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their cases under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed with the liberty to seek revival if the settlement is rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal if the "Vivad se Vishwas" application is rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to settle the case under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with the liberty to seek revival if the settlement is rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, respectfully following a coordinate bench's decision in similar cases of sister concerns. The Tribunal found no cogent evidence from the assessee to justify the interest-free advances as purely for business purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, respectfully following a coordinate bench's decision in similar cases of sister concerns. The Tribunal found no cogent evidence from the assessee to justify the interest-free advances as purely for business purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees intended to settle their cases under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed with the liberty to seek revival if the settlement is rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, respectfully following a coordinate bench's decision in similar cases of sister concerns. The Tribunal found no cogent evidence from the assessee to justify the interest-free advances as purely for business purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with the liberty to seek revival if the settlement is rejected on technical grounds.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with the liberty to seek revival if the settlement is rejected.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was given liberty to approach the tribunal to reinstate the appeal if the Vivad se Vishwas application was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the purchase and sale of the property within a short period of two months indicated an intention to profit, classifying the transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade. Consequently, Section 50C was deemed not applicable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal if the Vivad se Vishwas application was rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal if the "Vivad se Vishwas" application was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to disprove the source of funds and that the credits appeared in the previous assessment year (AY 2007-08). Therefore, the addition in the current assessment year (AY 2008-09) was unjustified.

The Tribunal found no merit in the lower authorities' reasoning that a revised return was mandatory. It held that appellate authorities' jurisdiction to entertain new claims is not affected by the absence of a revised return.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' application was rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal if the "Vivad se Vishwas" application is rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' application was rejected.

The tribunal dismissed the ground related to treating interest income as capital receipt, upholding the lower authorities' decision. However, it restored the issue of netting interest income against expenditure to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. Regarding business expenses, the tribunal directed the rental income to be assessed as income from house property and allowed the remaining expenses to be considered for deduction as business expenses.

The Tribunal found no merit in keeping the appeals pending until the settlement scheme was finalized. It dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to seek revival if settlement benefits were denied.