ITAT Chennai Judgments — September 2018

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

The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions, held that a reasonable disallowance of 25% of the claimed expenses would meet the ends of justice, as the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the entire expenditure.

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

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it was noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT for filing appeals.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. Following this circular, the Tribunal held that the Revenue cannot proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs officers to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. Following this circular, the Tribunal held that the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(v) was not to be made as the assessee had no control over the fund created by LIC for the benefit of its employees. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and ITAT decisions.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions. Since the assessee failed to provide any material to disprove the findings, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not duly considered the assessee's claim regarding the firm accounting for income and paying taxes, as per the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). Therefore, the issue was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) did not mention if the remittance was made before filing the return. The assessee also failed to provide proof of remittance before filing the return.

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 Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than Rs. 20,00,000/-. Following CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the appeal of the Revenue could not survive.

The Tribunal held that no deemed addition can be made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act if the amount is paid before the due date of filing the return of income. This decision followed a High Court ruling.

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

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

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

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was less than Rs. 20.00 lakhs, making them non-maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs officers to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. Following this circular, the Tribunal held that the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below the specified limit should not be pressed. Therefore, the appeals of the Revenue could not be sustained.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs officers to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than Rs. 20.00 lakhs. Based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, such appeals are not maintainable before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowances for salary, travelling, and pooja expenses, finding them to be either supported by evidence or reasonable business expenses. However, the disallowance for miscellaneous expenses was sustained due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than Rs. 20.00 lakhs, which is below the threshold for appeals by the Revenue as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal could not be sustained.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below the specified limit should not be pressed. Therefore, the appeals of the Revenue could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that a protective assessment is always successive to a substantive assessment and cannot survive without it. Since the substantive assessment was pending before the High Court, the protective assessment made by the AO was sustained.

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

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was less than Rs. 20.00 lakhs, making them non-maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal agreed that the tax effect was below the specified limit. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue could not be sustained.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission, noting that the tax effect in all appeals was below the Rs. 20 lakhs limit set by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that if the loss of the non-eligible unit was already set off, there was no need to set it off again. However, this claim needed verification by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that if employee contributions are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, there can be no deemed addition. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was sustained.

The Tribunal held that if the loss of the non-eligible unit was already set off, there was no need to set it off again. However, this claim needed verification by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that if the loss of the non-eligible unit was already set off, there was no need to set it off again. However, this claim needed verification by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that a mere claim for deduction, even if subsequently withdrawn, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Relying on the Apex Court judgment in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals)'s finding that the six branches were rural was not challenged by the Revenue. However, the CIT(Appeals) had not properly examined the nature of the provision made by the assessee, particularly regarding standard assets.

The Tribunal found that it was unclear whether the assessee's profits were derived from manufacturing/producing articles or software, or from rendering services. Therefore, the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 10A was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made when the assessee has not earned any exempted income. The CIT(Appeals) rightly relied on previous tribunal and high court orders.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate promptly.

The Tribunal held that if the employee's contribution towards PF was remitted within the due date for filing the income tax return, no disallowance could be made. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the services were rendered outside India by non-residents with no permanent establishment or business connection in India, the income was not taxable in India, and thus, no tax deduction was required.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities relied on reports and statements without providing them to the assessee for rebuttal, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeals. It also held that the ex parte disposal by the CIT(Appeals) was not justified as the assessee's representative could not appear due to illness, and set aside the orders to provide another opportunity.

The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeals. It also held that the ex parte disposal by the CIT(Appeals) was not justified as the assessee's representative could not appear due to illness, and set aside the orders to provide another opportunity.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission, noting that the tax effect in all appeals was below the Rs. 20 lakhs limit set by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that if the loss of the non-eligible unit was already set off, there was no need to set it off again. However, this claim needed verification by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that a home loan used to purchase a new residential property before the sale of the old one is eligible for deduction under Section 54, as there is no condition to invest the exact sale consideration. The addition under Section 68 was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.