ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — March 2021

The Tribunal found that the estimation was based on peculiar facts and not a valid precedent. It reduced the estimated GP to 4.5% for the assessment year, stating it should not be treated as a precedent.

The tribunal, relying on a High Court decision, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, the assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if their case was not accepted under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals of both the Revenue and the Assessee as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's decision to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's appeal against the original assessment order under Section 143(3) was already pending, the Section 154 rectification appeal should also be restored to the CIT(A). This is to avoid contradictory decisions and ensure consistency.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for factual verification regarding the assessment of the impugned income component in the subsequent assessment year. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO with necessary details.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable because the Assessing Officer himself, after conducting remand proceedings and verifying the payments, found the assessee's explanation to be genuine. Therefore, the Revenue could not be considered an aggrieved party.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals of both the Revenue and the Assessee as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's decision to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision holding that an appeal should be deemed properly filed upon payment of admitted tax. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme and the Revenue conceded to the request. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had obtained relief on merits in consequential proceedings. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals of both the Revenue and the Assessee as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's decision to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal found no merit in the assessees' contention that the appeals should be kept pending. They dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a provision for revival if settlement benefits were denied for technical reasons.

The tribunal found no merit in the assessees' contention that the appeals should be kept pending. They dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a provision for revival if settlement benefits were denied for technical reasons.

The tribunal found no merit in the assessees' contention that the appeals should be kept pending. They dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a provision for revival if settlement benefits were denied for technical reasons.

The tribunal found no merit in the assessees' contention that the appeals should be kept pending. They dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a provision for revival if settlement benefits were denied for technical reasons.

The tribunal found no merit in the assessees' contention that the appeals should be kept pending. They dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a provision for revival if settlement benefits were denied for technical reasons.

The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek reinstatement if the scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assesses' request to withdraw their appeals. It was clarified that the assesses could approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if their Vivad Se Vishwas applications were rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assesses' request to withdraw their appeals. It was clarified that the assesses could approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if their Vivad Se Vishwas applications were rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assesses' request to withdraw their appeals. It was clarified that the assesses could approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if their Vivad Se Vishwas applications were rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assesses' request to withdraw their appeals. It was clarified that the assesses could approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if their Vivad Se Vishwas applications were rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assesses' request to withdraw their appeals. It was clarified that the assesses could approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if their Vivad Se Vishwas applications were rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assesses' request to withdraw their appeals. It was clarified that the assesses could approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if their Vivad Se Vishwas applications were rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assesses' request to withdraw their appeals. It was clarified that the assesses could approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeals if their Vivad Se Vishwas applications were rejected.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the cash deposits could be presumed as part of the assessee's turnover. However, since the assessee failed to provide reconciliation and the Revenue did not consider peak credit in light of turnover, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was deemed just and proper.

The Tribunal held that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose as the assessee is pursuing settlement. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek revival if settlement benefits are denied.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form 3CK with the prescribed authority (DSIR) and directed the AO to seek information from DSIR regarding the outcome of the application. Based on this information, the AO was instructed to grant the deduction under Section 35(2AB) in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, stating that keeping it pending would serve no purpose. The assessee can seek revival if the settlement benefit is denied.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) only has the power to obtain a remand report and not to remit the entire matter back to the AO. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal, following the principle of consistency and for proper verification of facts, remitted the present appeals back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration with similar directions as in the previous case.

The Tribunal, following the principle of consistency and for proper verification of facts, remitted the present appeals back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration with similar directions as in the previous case.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following the principle of consistency and for proper verification of facts, remitted the present appeals back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration with similar directions as in the previous case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal allowed the appeals to be withdrawn as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to explain the discrepancies before the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was remanded to the AO for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that while revised returns filed under Section 139(4) were invalid for the AY in question, the AO should still consider claims made during assessment to compute correct income. Since the firm did not claim the expenditure, taxing it in the hands of partners was not justified.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Both the assessee's counsel and the Revenue's representative conceded to this request.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Both the assessee's counsel and the Revenue's representative conceded to this request.

The Tribunal held that while revised returns filed under Section 139(4) were invalid for the AY in question, the AO should still consider claims made during assessment to compute correct income. Since the firm did not claim the expenditure, taxing it in the hands of partners was not justified.

The Tribunal held that while revised returns filed under Section 139(4) were invalid for the AY in question, the AO should still consider claims made during assessment to compute correct income. Since the firm did not claim the expenditure, taxing it in the hands of partners was not justified.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) accepted part of the cost of construction and improvement, they ought to have accepted it in full. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed by granting the remaining 25% of the claimed costs.

The Tribunal held that while revised returns filed under Section 139(4) were invalid for the AY in question, the AO should still consider claims made during assessment to compute correct income. Since the firm did not claim the expenditure, taxing it in the hands of partners was not justified.

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

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, which were legal in nature. These grounds were not raised before the lower authorities and were therefore remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal allowed the appeals to be withdrawn as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas scheme.