ITAT Chennai Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal held that the non-compete fee paid by the assessee was a capital expenditure, not eligible for depreciation. This decision was based on previous rulings of the Tribunal which had consistently held similar claims to be capital in nature.

The Tribunal held that the non-compete fee paid by the assessee was a capital expenditure, not eligible for depreciation. This decision was based on previous rulings of the Tribunal which had consistently held similar claims to be capital in nature.

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

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

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

The Tribunal noted that the Apex Court's decision in Chennai Properties & Investment was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter of rental income classification was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Similarly, the Section 14A disallowance was also remitted back for proper computation of expenses.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's approach was erroneous as the company had already revalued its assets and computed capital gains on conversion. The cost of acquisition for subsequent sales of stock-in-trade should be based on the fair market value at the time of conversion, which was already accepted for AY 2010-11.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's approach was erroneous as the company had already revalued its assets and computed capital gains on conversion. The cost of acquisition for subsequent sales of stock-in-trade should be based on the fair market value at the time of conversion, which was already accepted for AY 2010-11.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by the assessee from M/s. ISML were in the nature of commercial transactions and trade advances, not loans or advances in the nature of loans. Therefore, Section 2(22)(e) was not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by the assessee from M/s. ISML were in the nature of commercial transactions and trade advances, not loans or advances in the nature of loans. Therefore, they did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made towards undervaluation and not concealment, and the Assessing Officer did not provide concrete evidence for the undervaluation. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked.

The Tribunal held that the matter required a fresh look by the Assessing Officer as crucial documents like the company's balance sheet and the undertaking were not properly verified by the lower authorities. The question of explaining the source of cash deposits was remitted back.

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

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's approach was erroneous as the company had already revalued its assets and computed capital gains on conversion. The cost of acquisition for subsequent sales of stock-in-trade should be based on the fair market value at the time of conversion, which was already accepted for AY 2010-11.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) as it was consistent with previous orders. For Section 14A, the Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that disallowance is not permissible when no exempt income is earned.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) as it was consistent with previous orders. For Section 14A, the Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that disallowance is not permissible when no exempt income is earned.

The Tribunal heard the Departmental Representative and noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim for harbor charges required a fresh look. It set aside the lower authorities' orders regarding the disallowance of harbor expenses and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

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 these appeals.

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 these appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the weighted deduction on R&D expenditure exceeding DSIR approval, following a coordinate bench's decision. It also allowed the carry forward of additional depreciation, relying on a High Court judgment. The Revenue's appeal regarding disallowance for non-resident payments and depreciation on UPS was dismissed.

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 Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with these appeals.

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 these appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the weighted deduction on R&D expenditure exceeding DSIR approval, following a coordinate bench's decision. It also allowed the carry forward of additional depreciation, relying on a High Court judgment. The Revenue's appeal regarding disallowance for non-resident payments and depreciation on UPS was dismissed.