ITAT Chennai Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) requires verification of whether the recipient had paid tax, and thus remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that while turnover includes gross receipts, the assessee had a bona fide belief that their commission did not exceed the audit limit. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for not getting the books audited.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to overturn a High Court judgment, which is binding. Once an assessment order merges with a High Court judgment, the AO cannot reopen it on the same grounds.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to overturn a High Court judgment, which is binding. Once an assessment order merges with a High Court judgment, the AO cannot reopen it on the same grounds.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee purchased the windmill undertaking as a going concern, and this was not disputed by the Revenue, the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 80-IA.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs officers to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the Revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs officers to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the Revenue.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the case back for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case with evidence, provided it intimates its correct address.

The tribunal held that MAT credit should be calculated inclusive of surcharge and educational cess, following previous co-ordinate bench decisions.

The Tribunal held that while the challenge to the jurisdiction was not made within the prescribed time, the assessee's bona fide belief regarding jurisdiction and the subsequent grant of registration under Section 12AA warranted re-adjudication of the quantum issues. The penalty was cancelled based on the assessee's reasonable cause.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of interest expenditure on borrowed funds to the AO for verification of the utilization of funds. The disallowance of dividend income under Section 14A was confirmed as per the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that while the challenge to the jurisdiction was not made within the prescribed time, the assessee's bona fide belief regarding jurisdiction and the subsequent grant of registration under Section 12AA warranted re-adjudication of the quantum issues. The penalty was cancelled based on the assessee's reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that while the challenge to the jurisdiction was not made within the prescribed time, the assessee's bona fide belief regarding jurisdiction and the subsequent grant of registration under Section 12AA warranted re-adjudication of the quantum issues. The penalty was cancelled based on the assessee's reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that while the challenge to the jurisdiction was not made within the prescribed time, the assessee's bona fide belief regarding jurisdiction and the subsequent grant of registration under Section 12AA warranted re-adjudication of the quantum issues. The penalty was cancelled based on the assessee's reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that while the challenge to the jurisdiction was not made within the prescribed time, the assessee's bona fide belief regarding jurisdiction and the subsequent grant of registration under Section 12AA warranted re-adjudication of the quantum issues. The penalty was cancelled based on the assessee's reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that while the challenge to the jurisdiction was not made within the prescribed time, the assessee's bona fide belief regarding jurisdiction and the subsequent grant of registration under Section 12AA warranted re-adjudication of the quantum issues. The penalty was cancelled based on the assessee's reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that while the challenge to the jurisdiction was not made within the prescribed time, the assessee's bona fide belief regarding jurisdiction and the subsequent grant of registration under Section 12AA warranted re-adjudication of the quantum issues. The penalty was cancelled based on the assessee's reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that while the challenge to the jurisdiction was not made within the prescribed time, the assessee's bona fide belief regarding jurisdiction and the subsequent grant of registration under Section 12AA warranted re-adjudication of the quantum issues. The penalty was cancelled based on the assessee's reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that while the challenge to the jurisdiction was not made within the prescribed time, the assessee's bona fide belief regarding jurisdiction and the subsequent grant of registration under Section 12AA warranted re-adjudication of the quantum issues. The penalty was cancelled based on the assessee's reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that while the challenge to the jurisdiction was not made within the prescribed time, the assessee's bona fide belief regarding jurisdiction and the subsequent grant of registration under Section 12AA warranted re-adjudication of the quantum issues. The penalty was cancelled based on the assessee's reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that while the challenge to the jurisdiction was not made within the prescribed time, the assessee's bona fide belief regarding jurisdiction and the subsequent grant of registration under Section 12AA warranted re-adjudication of the quantum issues. The penalty was cancelled based on the assessee's reasonable cause.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of interest expenditure on borrowed funds to the AO for verification of the utilization of funds. The disallowance of dividend income under Section 14A was confirmed as per the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of property, which is the basis for capital gains, occurred only in August 2012 with the execution of the second power of attorney. Therefore, capital gains were not taxable in AY 2012-13.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular instructing withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs is binding on the revenue. Therefore, the appeal cannot be proceeded with.

The Tribunal held that while the challenge to the jurisdiction was not made within the prescribed time, the assessee's bona fide belief regarding jurisdiction and the subsequent grant of registration under Section 12AA warranted re-adjudication of the quantum issues. The penalty was cancelled based on the assessee's reasonable cause.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the merits of the penalty levied.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was given multiple opportunities to appear before the CIT(A) but failed to do so, citing reasons beyond their control. The Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the repayment was made from the assessee's overdraft account with the State Bank of India, which had sufficient drawing power. The payment was effected from this account even before the funds from the partner were received.

The Tribunal found that relevant facts were not placed before the AO and CIT(A), and the CIT(A) relied solely on a previous ITAT order without appreciating the facts. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that payments made to surveyors for assessing damages were not taxable in India, and thus no TDS was liable. It also ruled that MAT under Section 115JB is not applicable to insurance companies as they follow different accounting guidelines.

The Tribunal held that payments made to surveyors for assessing damages were not taxable in India, and thus no TDS was liable. It also ruled that MAT under Section 115JB is not applicable to insurance companies as they follow different accounting guidelines.

The Tribunal held that payments made to surveyors for assessing damages were not taxable in India, and thus no TDS was liable. It also ruled that MAT under Section 115JB is not applicable to insurance companies as they follow different accounting guidelines.

The Tribunal found that relevant facts were not placed before the AO and CIT(A), and the CIT(A) relied solely on a previous ITAT order without appreciating the facts. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that payments made to surveyors for assessing damages were not taxable in India, and thus no TDS was liable. It also ruled that MAT under Section 115JB is not applicable to insurance companies as they follow different accounting guidelines.

The Tribunal held that payments made to surveyors for assessing damages were not taxable in India, and thus no TDS was liable. It also ruled that MAT under Section 115JB is not applicable to insurance companies as they follow different accounting guidelines.

The Tribunal held that payments made to surveyors for assessing damages were not taxable in India, and thus no TDS was liable. It also ruled that MAT under Section 115JB is not applicable to insurance companies as they follow different accounting guidelines.

The Tribunal held that payments made to surveyors for assessing damages were not taxable in India, and thus no TDS was liable. It also ruled that MAT under Section 115JB is not applicable to insurance companies as they follow different accounting guidelines.

The Tribunal held that payments made to surveyors for assessing damages were not taxable in India, and thus no TDS was liable. It also ruled that MAT under Section 115JB is not applicable to insurance companies as they follow different accounting guidelines.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular instructed to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal held that payments made to surveyors for assessing damages were not taxable in India, and thus no TDS was liable. It also ruled that MAT under Section 115JB is not applicable to insurance companies as they follow different accounting guidelines.

The Tribunal held that payments made to surveyors for assessing damages were not taxable in India, and thus no TDS was liable. It also ruled that MAT under Section 115JB is not applicable to insurance companies as they follow different accounting guidelines.

The Tribunal held that payments made to surveyors for assessing damages were not taxable in India, and thus no TDS was liable. It also ruled that MAT under Section 115JB is not applicable to insurance companies as they follow different accounting guidelines.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal without considering the material available, including tax-exempt certificates. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that it was unclear whether the payments were remitted before the due date specified under Section 139(1). Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the payment, though not a business expenditure or royalty, was a distribution of partnership assets consequent to a family settlement for a retiring partner. Therefore, it is an allowable deduction while computing taxable income.

The Tribunal held that proportionate expenditure on retention money is allowable on accrual basis and remitted the issue to the AO for quantification. The disallowance of interest on TDS was upheld, and the restriction of depreciation on software was also confirmed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection. The assessee's counsel withdrew the cross-objection, and the Revenue's appeal was considered within the monetary limit.