ITAT Chennai Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's submissions but, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the DRP for de-novo consideration. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case.

The ITAT, in the interest of justice, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the authorities to expedite proceedings.

The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the revenue authorities to expedite the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF & ESI is deposited after the due date prescribed by the relevant Act but before the due date of filing the Income Tax return, no disallowance can be made. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which instructs withdrawal of appeals with tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs, is binding on the department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remit the matter back to the TPO for de-novo consideration of the fresh evidence submitted by the assessee. The ground related to Section 14A was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that statutory expenses incurred by the assessee company for its existence are fully allowable against business income and cannot be apportioned. Expenses related to the business of the assessee are also allowable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the assessee's explanation for the cash found was plausible and corroborated by his spouse's statement. The Tribunal noted that the search and survey were simultaneous, preventing cash removal from business premises.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal based on additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that since the cost of construction was accepted by the Revenue in the case of another sister, it was not open to deny the same to the present assessees. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the benefit of indexation and cost of construction.

The Tribunal held that the application of Rule 8D is not automatic and the assessee should be given an opportunity to compute actual expenses. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) is intended to curb unaccounted money and tax avoidance by unconnected parties. In this case, the transaction was between closely related shareholders for a genuine business purpose, and any benefit was within the family, which is not taxable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which instructs officers to withdraw appeals pending before the ITAT with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs, is binding on the Department.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No.3/2018, which instructs officers to withdraw appeals pending before the ITAT with a tax effect less than ₹20 lakhs, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with these appeals.

The Tribunal found that ad-hoc disallowances are not permissible unless books of accounts are rejected. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after examining the evidence.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was engaged in financial services and earned interest income during the relevant assessment year, the entire expenditure incurred for earning such income, including salary to directors, should be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that since the cost of construction was accepted by the Revenue in the case of another sister, it was not open to deny the same to the present assessees. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the benefit of indexation and cost of construction.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the salary advance was an expenditure incurred in the course of business, considering the employee's importance to the company's growth. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No.3/2018, which instructs officers to withdraw appeals pending before the ITAT with a tax effect less than ₹20 lakhs, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with these appeals.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's written submissions, which contained various details. In the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which instructs officers to withdraw appeals pending before the ITAT with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs, is binding on the Department.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, instructing withdrawal of appeals with tax effect below ₹20 lakhs, is binding on the Revenue officers. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which instructs to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee to present all supporting materials.

The Tribunal held that the penalty needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer in light of the High Court's judgment which favored the assessee on the share capital issue. The disallowance for gifts and compliments also required a fresh look.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that a partnership deed does not ipso facto convert a firm into one between artificial persons. Even if a karta of an HUF joins, he can be considered a partner in his individual capacity.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than Rs. 20,00,000/-. Following the CBDT circular, the Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, instructing withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs, is binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal could not proceed.

The Tribunal directed that the disallowance under Section 14A be restricted to the amount originally disallowed by the assessee itself, following the ratio of the Delhi High Court decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order. For PF/ESI, it agreed with the direction to verify remittance before the due date. For carbon credit, it found that the assessee had not accounted for it as income due to pending formalities, and thus, it was not taxable.

The CIT(A) correctly followed the Gujarat High Court's decision that a demand raised beyond 4 years, when returns were filed in time, is invalid. Therefore, the tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the Section 10AA deduction issue, following a CBDT circular based on a Supreme Court decision. It also dismissed the appeal regarding the warranty provision, upholding the CIT(A)'s direction to avoid double taxation. The appeal on PF/ESI remittances was also dismissed, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs officers to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is less than ₹20 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the Department.

The CIT(A) correctly followed the Gujarat High Court's decision that a demand raised beyond 4 years, when returns were filed in time, is invalid. Therefore, the tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the application of Rule 8D is not automatic and should only be applied if the assessee fails to compute the actual expenses incurred for earning exempt income to the satisfaction of the Revenue. Since the assessee had not computed its actual expenditure, the matter was remitted back to the AO for re-computation.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The appeal was deemed not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit.

The Tribunal held that taxability of royalty and fees for technical services under the DTAA arises only upon actual payment, not merely upon crediting the amount. Since the assessee paid the amounts in the subsequent year and remitted the deducted tax, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not examined the new evidence. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove that Shri Neelamegan used the credit card or that the transactions were loan repayments. Therefore, the addition of unexplained expenditure was rightly confirmed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove that the land was used for agricultural purposes for the two years preceding the sale, as required by Section 54B. Therefore, the claim for deduction was not admissible.

The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove that the land was used for agricultural purposes for the two years preceding the sale, as required by Section 54B. Therefore, the claim for deduction was not admissible.

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) did not properly consider the DTA agreements for each payment. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the genuineness of sundry creditors must be substantiated with cogent evidence for each assessment year, irrespective of previous years' findings. Since the assessee failed to provide such evidence, the additions were confirmed.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. As there was no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee one more opportunity to furnish details regarding preoperative expenses.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable because the Commissioner, who granted permission to file the appeal, was not made aware of the Revenue's audit objection at the time of approval. This contravened the procedure for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that the application of Rule 8D is not automatic and the AO should first allow the assessee to compute expenses related to exempt income. Since the assessee did not compute actual expenditure, the matter was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee one more opportunity to furnish details regarding preoperative expenses.