ITAT Chennai Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal held that in both appeals, the assessee's primary grievance was the lack of sufficient opportunity before the CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee claimed a share of ₹3 lakhs from a property sale of ₹60 lakhs, which was added as capital gains. For AY 2008-09, the penalty was levied on capital gains of ₹2,22,987 arising from a property sale of ₹45,44,000, which was not initially disclosed. In both instances, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-representation. To meet the ends of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A). Therefore, both matters were remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal noted that if the assessee fails to avail this opportunity, the penalty for AY 2008-09 would stand sustained. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and remitted the appeal back for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an effective opportunity to present their case. The assessee was also directed to cooperate fully with the CIT(A) for an early disposal.

The Tribunal held that in both appeals, the assessee's primary grievance was the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance, despite the assessee's plea for one more opportunity. The Tribunal acknowledged that to meet the ends of natural justice, the assessee should be given another chance to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, for AY 2009-10, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's submissions and decide afresh on the quantum addition. For AY 2008-09, the penalty proceedings were also remitted to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal stipulated that if the assessee failed to avail this opportunity, the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) would stand sustained. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that in both appeals, the assessee's primary grievance was the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance, despite the assessee's plea for one more opportunity. The Tribunal acknowledged that to meet the ends of natural justice, the assessee should be given another chance to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, for AY 2009-10, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's submissions and decide afresh on the quantum addition. For AY 2008-09, the penalty proceedings were also remitted to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal stipulated that if the assessee failed to avail this opportunity, the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) would stand sustained. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This was done to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard, in the interest of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that appeals with a tax effect below ₹20,00,000/- are not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No.3/2018. The Departmental Representative agreed with this position.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) deleted the additions without obtaining a remand report, which is a violation of Rule 46A. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause from complying with the CIT's requests. Therefore, the CIT(Exemptions) was directed to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present the required details.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the case back to the AO. The CIT(A) was directed to provide one more opportunity to the assessee for appearance and then dispose of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the defects were not rectified by the assessee, preventing the appeal from being adjudicated. Consequently, the appeal could not be taken up for hearing.

The Tribunal held that in both appeals, the assessee's primary grievance was the lack of sufficient opportunity before the CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee claimed a share of ₹3 lakhs from a property sale of ₹60 lakhs, which was added as capital gains. For AY 2008-09, the penalty was levied on capital gains of ₹2,22,987 arising from a property sale of ₹45,44,000, which was not initially disclosed. In both instances, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-representation. To meet the ends of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A). Therefore, both matters were remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal noted that if the assessee fails to avail this opportunity, the penalty for AY 2008-09 would stand sustained. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Departmental Representative also conceded to this fact.

The High Court set aside the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel and the consequential assessment order, remitting the matter back for fresh consideration. Consequently, the assessee sought to withdraw its appeal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by considering the sale consideration as ₹.52.66 crores and incorrectly concluding the DVO value was lower. The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the DVO value of ₹.48.99 crores for computing long-term capital gains.

The ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to afford the assessee an effective opportunity to present their case on merits. The tribunal also directed the assessee to cooperate with the CIT(A) for early disposal of the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by misinterpreting the sale consideration and DVO's valuation. The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the DVO's valuation as the sale consideration for computing long-term capital gains.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an effective opportunity to present her case and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than Rs. 20,00,000/-. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible in the absence of exempt income. For the notional interest, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine if borrowed funds were diverted for loans when surplus funds were available.

The Tribunal allowed the claim for additional depreciation on the windmill, partly allowed the disallowance under Section 14A by restricting it to 2% of exempt income, and remanded the issue of financial charges disallowance to the AO for fresh examination. The grounds related to staff quarters rent were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the relief granted by the CIT(A) was correct. The facts presented, particularly regarding payments not exceeding Rs. 20,000/- per weaver per day and payments made on bank holidays, were not disputed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the trademark transfer resulted in long-term capital gains, considering the holding period of the previous owner. However, the eligibility for Section 54F deduction was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for a prior assessment year was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the current issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

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 if the payees have discharged their tax obligations on the interest income, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default, and Section 40(a)(ia) would not apply to that extent. The matter was remanded to the AO for re-examination.

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 officers.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on capital contributed by partners, as per the partnership deed, is an allowable deduction. The interest income arose from funds contributed by partners, making the expenditure deductible.

The Tribunal held that if the payees have discharged their tax obligations on the interest income, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default, and Section 40(a)(ia) would not apply to that extent. The matter was remanded to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that Section 54 of the Act does not expressly require the new asset to be purchased in the assessee's own name. Relying on various High Court decisions, it was observed that the new residential house need not be purchased exclusively in the assessee's name.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal. It directed the AO to re-work the profit-level indicator (PLI) after considering M/s.R.Systems as a comparable and accepted the assessee's request for its inclusion. However, it rejected the assessee's prayer for exclusion of certain comparables and dismissed the ground related to depreciation on software.

The Tribunal directed the lower authorities to recompute capital gains based on the actual sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed, not the higher amount mistakenly declared by the assessee. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction under Section 54F, considering the construction as a new residential unit.

The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, directed the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case and decide the issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 153A following a search, penalty should have been levied under Section 271AAA, not Section 271(1)(c). The mistake was procedural and not curable.

The Tribunal found the credential of the builder's 'Final Statement' doubtful as it did not reflect a ₹.4,00,000/- advance paid by the assessee as per the agreement. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to re-verify the builder's accounts and the payments made.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities relied on reports and statements that were not provided to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The SEBI's interim order was also later vacated. Therefore, the issue requires reconsideration by the Assessing Officer.

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

The Tribunal held that excess expenditure from earlier years can be adjusted against income of subsequent years, treating it as application of income for charitable purposes. This is supported by various High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the drawings were part of current account transactions for business purposes and not loans or advances. Relying on High Court and Tribunal precedents, it ruled that Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the drawings were part of current account transactions for business purposes and not loans or advances. Relying on High Court and Tribunal precedents, it ruled that Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the drawings were part of current account transactions for business purposes and not loans or advances. Relying on High Court and Tribunal precedents, it ruled that Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the conversion of a partnership firm into a company, where assets and liabilities are taken over and partners become shareholders in the same proportion, does not constitute a 'transfer' for capital gains tax purposes. Therefore, capital gains tax cannot be levied on the assessee company.

The Tribunal held that the drawings were part of current account transactions for business purposes and not loans or advances. Relying on High Court and Tribunal precedents, it ruled that Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the drawings were part of current account transactions for business purposes and not loans or advances. Relying on High Court and Tribunal precedents, it ruled that Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the intimation raising the demand under Section 234E was invalid as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A prior to June 1, 2015. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer did not pass an independent order under Section 234E within the prescribed limitation period.

The Tribunal noted that while a co-operative bank is not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to members, the assessee failed to provide evidence for this. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to prove the interest payments were made to its members.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities' orders were not sustainable as they relied on evidence not provided to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The case was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause in the Indo-Belgium DTAA to determine if it overrides Article 12 and to decide the issue afresh. The Cross Objection by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was made based on Revenue's investigation without giving the assessee an opportunity to prove the genuineness of transactions. Following a coordinate bench decision, the issue was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

The tribunal held that the CBDT circular instructing withdrawal of appeals with tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs is binding on revenue officers. Therefore, the appeal could not proceed.