ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — April 2021

N. GEETHA RANI,SECUNDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1009/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed7 Apr 2021AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to settle under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee retains the right to revive the appeal if the settlement benefit is denied for technical reasons.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs GODAVARI DEVELOPERS, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1516/HYD/2016[2013-14]Status: Disposed7 Apr 2021AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reliance on Section 44AD was misplaced due to the assessee's high turnover. However, considering the lucrative nature of real estate business and the assessee's failure to provide proper documentation, the Tribunal estimated the net taxable income at 18% of the turnover.

AYESHA ABID ALI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-6(3), HYD., HYDERABAD

ITA 847/HYD/2015[2006-07]Status: Disposed7 Apr 2021AY 2006-07Remanded

The Tribunal condoned a 2-day delay in filing the appeal. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify the additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the source of the cash credit.

NIRMALA ALLA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 261/HYD/2020[2007-08]Status: Disposed6 Apr 2021AY 2007-08Remanded

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of cooperation but, considering the prayer and the issue, remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, granting one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in future proceedings.

BHEESHMA GOUD SURVI,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 21/HYD/2020[2007-08]Status: Disposed6 Apr 2021AY 2007-08Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the 5-day delay in filing the appeal before it. However, it found that the lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-appearance, despite the assessee claiming lack of proper opportunity. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO.

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs APR CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 804/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn. This was permitted because the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, with a condition that the Revenue could seek revival if the settlement benefit was denied.

VADLAMUDI NARSAIAH,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HYDERABAD

ITA 159/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the settlement under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee retains the right to revive the appeal if the settlement benefit is denied.

V.V.V.SATYANARAYANA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 529/HYD/2018[2007-08]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2007-08Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival if the settlement benefit is denied.

PREETHI RATHI,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1066/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as settlement proceedings were underway. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to revive them if settlement benefits were denied.

JAYPAL REDDY MUNGALA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1109/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2010-11Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as settlement proceedings were underway. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to revive them if settlement benefits were denied.

CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT CONCERNS,HYDERABAD vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

ITA 1540/HYD/2019[0]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021Withdrawn

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

JVR CROISSANACE INFRASTRUCTURE CO PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1903/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2013-14Withdrawn

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme.

KAMAKSHI SOMANI,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 640/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2015-16Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as settlement proceedings were underway. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to revive them if settlement benefits were denied.

SAROJ NAWANDAR,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 792/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as settlement proceedings were underway. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to revive them if settlement benefits were denied.

SANJAY RATHI,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 857/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as settlement proceedings were underway. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to revive them if settlement benefits were denied.

PURUSHOTTAMDAS RATHI,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 79/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as settlement proceedings were underway. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to revive them if settlement benefits were denied.

NITESH GOLAS,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 2189/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2015-16Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as settlement proceedings were underway. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to revive them if settlement benefits were denied.

A.V. MALA KONDESWARA RAO,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), HYDERABAD

ITA 1205/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee chose to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival if the scheme benefit is denied.

VANDANA NAWANDAR,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 683/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting the assessee's decision to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee retains the right to seek revival if scheme benefits are denied.

GOVIND KUMAR NAWANDER HUF,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(5), HYDERABAD

ITA 871/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee chose to settle the dispute under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival if the settlement benefit is denied.

SPRYSOFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16, HYDERABAD

ITA 479/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee chose to settle the dispute under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival if the settlement benefit is denied.

XT GLOBAL INFOTECH LIMITED (FORMERLY:FRONTIER INFORMATICS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ),HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 68/HYD/2020[2002-03]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2002-03Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival if the settlement benefit is denied.

AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 96/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek revival if the scheme benefit is denied for technical reasons.

M/S DECCAN STRIPS AND TUBES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S.D.T.TUBES PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1936/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2009-10Dismissed

The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn because the assessee opted to avail the benefit under the 'Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2020'. The assessee can seek revival if the scheme benefit is denied.

SUNITA MUNDADA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1651/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as settlement proceedings were underway. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to revive them if settlement benefits were denied.

NARAYANDAS MUNDADA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1652/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as settlement proceedings were underway. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to revive them if settlement benefits were denied.

GOPALA NARAYAN MUNDADA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1650/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as settlement proceedings were underway. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to revive them if settlement benefits were denied.

SWARNALATHA AMUMALASETTY,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), HYDERABAD

ITA 1204/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is subject to the condition that the assessee can seek revival if the settlement benefit is denied for technical reasons.

HARI NARAYAN MUNDADA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1649/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as settlement proceedings were underway. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to revive them if settlement benefits were denied.

KOMMARAJU JAYA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE11(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 844/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2007-08Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was permitted to seek revival of the appeal if the scheme benefit was denied for technical reasons.

RAJENDER KUMAR AGARWAL, SEC'BAD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 958/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal was with a rider allowing for revival if the scheme benefit is denied.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1)., HYDERABAD vs BBEL-MIPL JOINT VENTURE., HYDERABAD.

ITA 1263/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was due to the tax effect being below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars for filing appeals.

DECCAN STRIPS AND TUBES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1289/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee chose to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival if the scheme benefit is denied.

SANGEETA MUNDADA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1648/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as settlement proceedings were underway. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to revive them if settlement benefits were denied.

GOVIND DAS MUNDADA,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1647/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose as settlement proceedings were underway. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to revive them if settlement benefits were denied.

DECCAN STRIPS AND TUBES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1760/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2011-12Dismissed

The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn because the assessee opted to avail the benefit under the 'Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2020'. The assessee can seek revival if the scheme benefit is denied.

SWASTIK MIRCH STORE,HYDERABAD vs ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1810/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival if the scheme benefit is denied.

M/S.DECCAN STRIPS AND TUBES PRIVATE LIMITED( FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S D.T.TUBES PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1937/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed5 Apr 2021AY 2010-11Dismissed

The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn because the assessee opted to avail the benefit under the 'Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2020'. The assessee can seek revival if the scheme benefit is denied.