ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — February 2021

The Tribunal restored the issue of land being a capital asset back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. The assessees were directed to appear before the AO with necessary evidence for further proceedings.

The Tribunal restored the issue of land being a capital asset back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. The assessees were directed to appear before the AO with necessary evidence for further proceedings.

The Tribunal restored the issue of land being a capital asset back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. The assessees were directed to appear before the AO with necessary evidence for further proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the appeals afresh on merits, providing the assessee another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that keeping the appeal pending until the settlement scheme is finalized would serve no purpose. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to reinstate them if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme acceptance failed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to reinstate them if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme acceptance failed.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea for an opportunity to be heard, despite the revenue's contention of non-appearance. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide an adequate opportunity to the taxpayer before declining to condone the delay. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the condonation aspect and merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the appeals afresh on merits, providing the assessee another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) is mandatory, even if not raised by the assessee. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with a mandatory reference to the DVO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the appeals afresh on merits, providing the assessee another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) is mandatory, even if not raised by the assessee. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with a mandatory reference to the DVO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 54 even if the new property is purchased in the name of a spouse, following various High Court decisions. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under challenge were a nullity as they were finalized after the Tribunal's earlier order directing the AO to reconsider the matter. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was allowed on this ground.

The Tribunal found that neither the assessee fully explained the source of her father's cash nor did the lower authorities consider withdrawals and cash in hand. Therefore, the addition was reduced.

The Tribunal restored the issue of land being a capital asset back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. The assessees were directed to appear before the AO with necessary evidence for further proceedings.

The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) is mandatory, even if not raised by the assessee. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with a mandatory reference to the DVO.

The Tribunal restored the issue of land being a capital asset back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. The assessees were directed to appear before the AO with necessary evidence for further proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained relief in the appeal against the consequential order passed by the AO. Therefore, the assessee sought to withdraw the present appeal as they had no further grievance.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) should have considered the revised computation filed by the assessee. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order and allowed the AO to reinitiate proceedings after the quantum assessment is concluded.

The Tribunal held that assessing the entire suppressed gross receipts was unsustainable and directed a lump-sum profit element assessment of 30% of the alleged suppressed gross receipts. It also directed a lump-sum disallowance of 25% of miscellaneous expenses.

The Tribunal held that assessing the entire suppressed gross receipts was unsustainable and directed a lump-sum profit element assessment of 30% of the alleged suppressed gross receipts. It also directed a lump-sum disallowance of 25% of miscellaneous expenses.

The Tribunal held that assessing the entire suppressed gross receipts was unsustainable and directed a lump-sum profit element assessment of 30% of the alleged suppressed gross receipts. It also directed a lump-sum disallowance of 25% of miscellaneous expenses.

The Tribunal held that assessing the entire suppressed gross receipts was unsustainable and directed a lump-sum profit element assessment of 30% of the alleged suppressed gross receipts. It also directed a lump-sum disallowance of 25% of miscellaneous expenses.

The Tribunal held that assessing the entire suppressed gross receipts was unsustainable and directed a lump-sum profit element assessment of 30% of the alleged suppressed gross receipts. It also directed a lump-sum disallowance of 25% of miscellaneous expenses.

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

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) should have considered the revised computation filed by the assessee. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order and allowed the AO to reinitiate proceedings after the quantum assessment is concluded.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing the levy of late fees under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for TDS returns filed after this date, the late fee was applicable. The appeals for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 were dismissed as the levies were found to be in order.

The Tribunal held that assessing the entire suppressed gross receipts was unsustainable and directed a lump-sum profit element assessment of 30% of the alleged suppressed gross receipts. It also directed a lump-sum disallowance of 25% of miscellaneous expenses.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, allowing the levy of late fees under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for TDS returns filed after this date, the late fee was applicable. The appeals for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 were dismissed as the levies were found to be in order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that the distance of the land from the municipality and the plotting arrangement were not adequately considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing appeals for two assessees, finding their reasons justifiable. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of all appeals as the assessees had opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed without providing adequate opportunity for hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing appeals for two assessees, finding their reasons justifiable. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of all appeals as the assessees had opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme.

The Tribunal held that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd is applicable to employee's contribution to PF and ESI. If not remitted before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), it is disallowable.

The Tribunal held that since Form-3 was issued under the scheme, there was no purpose in keeping the appeals pending. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since Form(s)-3 were issued under the scheme, there was no purpose in keeping the appeals pending. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since Form(s)-3 were issued under the scheme, there was no purpose in keeping the appeals pending. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since Form-3 was issued under the scheme, there was no purpose in keeping the appeals pending. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since Form(s)-3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme had already been issued, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal upheld the disallowance of Section 80IB deduction, following its previous orders in identical cases for the same project. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits and the assessee claimed to have explanations for the investments. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration, with directions for a fair hearing and submission of necessary details by the assessee.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity to rebut the remand report. Considering the ex-parte order and the assessee's financial status, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing appeals for two assessees, finding their reasons justifiable. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of all appeals as the assessees had opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing appeals for two specific cases after reviewing the submitted affidavits. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of appeals for all assessees who opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since Form(s)-3 were issued under the scheme, there was no purpose in keeping the appeals pending. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.