ITAT Chennai Judgments — September 2018

The Tribunal held that the term 'tax' in Section 115JAA includes surcharge, as per Supreme Court judgments. Therefore, MAT credit should be allowed as an adjustment from the total tax payable, including surcharge and cess.

The Tribunal held that once a debt is written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's books, it should be allowed as a deduction. The decision in T.R.F. Ltd vs. CIT was cited, stating it's not necessary to prove the debt is irrecoverable if written off.

The Tribunal, while not finding merit in the assessee's initial arguments, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration in the interest of justice, allowing the assessee another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal, following the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, held that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should be withdrawn. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.

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

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was treated as application of income, following a Supreme Court judgment. It also allowed the carry forward of excess application of income from earlier years, citing High Court precedents. The issue of gratuity payment was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While not finding merit in the assessee's arguments, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in the appeal was below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal held that it has the power to remit matters back to the AO with directions. Following a previous order for AY 2010-11, the Tribunal remitted both appeals back to the AO for verification and allowance of bad debt deductions.

The Tribunal held that it has the power to remit matters back to the AO with directions. Following a previous order for AY 2010-11, the Tribunal remitted both appeals back to the AO for verification and allowance of bad debt deductions.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue could not survive as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that fresh evidence was considered by the CIT(A) without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be applied as the auditor inadvertently made the claim without verifying all facts due to miscommunication with the assessee living abroad. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the provision for contract loss and rental compensation was not a crystallized liability as of the relevant assessment year. The arbitration proceedings and settlement occurred after the previous year ended, and there was no evidence to support the rental compensation claim.

The Tribunal held that the design software was eligible for depreciation at 60%, as it qualified as computer software. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed based on CBDT circular regarding tax effect.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than the prescribed limit. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the design software was eligible for depreciation at 60%, as it qualified as computer software. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed based on CBDT circular regarding tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the statement of the entry operator could not be used as evidence without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case and furnish relied-upon statements.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities relied on reports and statements that were not provided to the assessee for rebuttal, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issue requires reconsideration by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the statement of the entry operator, which formed the basis of the assessment, was not provided to the assessee for cross-examination, violating natural justice. The matter was therefore restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

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