TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tax Appeals Dismissed by ITAT Hyderabad for Low Tax Effect</h1> <h3>Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle – 2 (1), Hyderabad. Versus Puppala Ramesh Kumar, Hyderabad.</h3> Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle – 2 (1), Hyderabad. Versus Puppala Ramesh Kumar, Hyderabad. - TMI Issues:1. Dismissal of appeals by the Revenue for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 due to low tax effect.2. Deletion of addition of undisclosed investment of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- for AY 2011-12.3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 3,78,00,000/- for AY 2012-13 on account of treating sundry/trade credits as unexplained.Issue 1 - Dismissal of Appeals:The appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 were dismissed by the ITAT Hyderabad due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 50.00 lakhs, in accordance with CBDT Circulars. The Revenue was granted the liberty to seek recall of the order if any case fell within the exceptions mentioned in the Circulars.Issue 2 - Deletion of Undisclosed Investment for AY 2011-12:In the appeal for AY 2011-12, the Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- as undisclosed investment. The AO had treated this amount as unexplained investment due to non-reflection in Form 52A. However, the CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition, stating that the AO lacked clear information and understanding of the issue. The CIT(A) found the addition unsustainable, as it was based on presumptions and lacked a proper enquiry. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this issue.Issue 3 - Deletion of Sundry/Trade Credits for AY 2012-13:Regarding the appeal for AY 2012-13, the Revenue contested the deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,78,00,000/- made by the AO on account of treating sundry/trade credits as unexplained. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, emphasizing that the claims of expenses related to the credits were not denied by the AO, and there was no disallowance in the assessment order. The CIT(A) held that if expenses were allowed as business expenses, the amounts could not be treated as unexplained credits. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this issue as well.In conclusion, all the appeals by the Revenue were dismissed by the ITAT Hyderabad, upholding the decisions of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions of undisclosed investments and sundry/trade credits for the respective assessment years.
TaxTMI 