Loading ITAT cases…
574 tribunal orders from the Chennai bench in 2015.
Showing 40 of 574 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of accounting for bad debts was acceptable, but the write-off required more substantiation. However, the Tribunal allowed the Section 54EC exemption, finding that the assessee had complied with the law prevailing at the time of investment.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal. It applied the tests laid down by the Gujarat High Court in Sarifabibi Mohammed Ibrahim, approved by the Supreme Court. While revenue records classifying the land as agricultural and its past cultivation are prima facie evidence, these can be rebutted. The Tribunal found that the land's location in a rapidly developing suburban area (Navalur, OMR) known for IT companies and housing projects, the sale to a company engaged in developing housing and IT parks, and the exceptionally high sale price (₹86 lakhs per acre) strongly indicated that the land was not genuinely agricultural. The Tribunal noted that while the sale deed mentioned mango and coconut trees, the cumulative circumstances, particularly the nature of the buyer and the price, outweighed the factors suggesting agricultural use. The Tribunal concluded that the property could not be considered agricultural land and thus fell under the definition of a capital asset, making the sale proceeds liable for capital gains tax. The CIT(A)'s deletion was reversed.
The Tribunal found that Smt. Vimalamma's statements were inconsistent and that the assessee had not sufficiently proved the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the transaction. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry.
The Tribunal found that Smt. Vimalamma's statements were inconsistent and that the assessee had not sufficiently proved the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the transaction. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of accounting for bad debts was acceptable, but the write-off required more substantiation. However, the Tribunal allowed the Section 54EC exemption, finding that the assessee had complied with the law prevailing at the time of investment.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 instructs officers to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which instructs to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs, is binding on the Revenue officers. Therefore, the appeal cannot proceed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54. It noted that the settlement of the property in favor of the daughter occurred within the same assessment year as the purchase.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's Circular No. 21/2015 instructs the withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the revenue officers.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 instructs officers to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the department.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 instructs officers to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is less than ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal held this circular to be binding on the department.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's Circular No. 21/2015 instructs the withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the revenue officers.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's Circular No. 21/2015 instructs the withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the revenue officers.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's Circular No. 21/2015 instructs the withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the revenue officers.
The Tribunal, following a CBDT circular, held that appeals with a tax effect below ₹10 lakhs should be withdrawn. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 instructs officers to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the department.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's Circular No. 21/2015 instructs the withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the revenue officers.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 instructs officers to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 instructs officers to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that while Rule 8D might not be strictly applicable for the assessment year 2008-09, Section 14A is applicable. They directed the Assessing Officer to disallow 2% of exempt income towards expenditure. For other issues, the Tribunal dismissed the grounds or partly allowed the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 instructs officers to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's Circular No. 21/2015 instructs the withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the revenue officers.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's Circular No. 21/2015 instructs the withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the revenue officers.
The Tribunal held that while Rule 8D might not be strictly applicable for the assessment year 2008-09, Section 14A is applicable. They directed the Assessing Officer to disallow 2% of exempt income towards expenditure. For other issues, the Tribunal dismissed the grounds or partly allowed the appeals.
The Tribunal, following a CBDT circular, held that appeals with a tax effect below ₹10 lakhs should be withdrawn. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's Circular No. 21/2015 instructs the withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the revenue officers.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 instructs officers to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the department.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 instructs officers to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the department.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 instructs officers to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's Circular No. 21/2015 instructs the withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the revenue officers.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's Circular No. 21/2015 instructs the withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the revenue officers.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 instructs officers to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's Circular No. 21/2015 instructs the withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the revenue officers.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 instructs officers to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's Circular No. 21/2015 instructs the withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below ₹10 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the revenue officers.
The Tribunal held that while Rule 8D might not be strictly applicable for the assessment year 2008-09, Section 14A is applicable. They directed the Assessing Officer to disallow 2% of exempt income towards expenditure. For other issues, the Tribunal dismissed the grounds or partly allowed the appeals.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which instructs to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which instructs withdrawal of appeals with tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with the appeal.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's claim of maintaining proper stock records and the revenue's agreement, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to produce all relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that tax must be deducted at the time of payment or credit, and Section 40(a)(ia) applies even if the amount is already paid. The decision of the Special Bench in Merilyn Shipping was overruled by various High Courts.