ITAT Chennai Judgments — November 2018

The Tribunal held that since additional material was filed, the matter needed to be re-examined by the original authority. Therefore, the orders of the authorities below were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was prospective.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees transferred the balance 3225 sqft land by a GPA without consideration on the same day they sold the other portion. The nature and scope of this transaction and its ramifications were not examined. The assessees filed rectification deeds before the CIT(A), but these were not forwarded to the AO for his version. The Revenue's counsel discovered that the value of the remaining 3 plots was not considered by either the AO or the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal found that the facts and circumstances were not properly appreciated. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's argument regarding the date for valuation. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it fit to remit the issues back to the AO for fresh examination, denovo. The assessee is to provide relevant materials, and the AO is to conduct appropriate inquiries, furnish adequate opportunity to the assessee, and decide the matter in accordance with law. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that since additional material was filed, the matter needed to be re-examined by the original authority. Therefore, the orders of the authorities below were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was prospective.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees transferred the balance 3225 sqft land by a GPA without consideration on the same day they sold the other portion. The nature and scope of this transaction and its ramifications were not examined. The assessees filed rectification deeds before the CIT(A), but these were not forwarded to the AO for his version. The Revenue's counsel discovered that the value of the remaining 3 plots was not considered by either the AO or the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal found that the facts and circumstances were not properly appreciated. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's argument regarding the date for valuation. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it fit to remit the issues back to the AO for fresh examination, denovo. The assessee is to provide relevant materials, and the AO is to conduct appropriate inquiries, furnish adequate opportunity to the assessee, and decide the matter in accordance with law. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were not applicable because the assessee was not a shareholder of the lending company. Following the precedent in Cargill India (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the application of Rule 8D is not automatic and should only be applied when the assessee cannot compute the expenses incurred towards earning exempt income to the satisfaction of the revenue authorities. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation.

The Tribunal held that since additional material was filed, the matter needed to be re-examined by the original authority. Therefore, the orders of the authorities below were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, allowing for the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and applicable only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge these fees for periods prior to that date.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in accepting fresh evidence and deleting the addition without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to be heard, which is a violation of Rule 46A. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that since additional material was filed, the matter needed to be re-examined by the original authority. Therefore, the orders of the authorities below were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not examined whether the impugned expenditure claimed by the assessees arose out of an overriding title. If the assessees' full ownership right was restricted by the parental deed, it could create an overriding title. These aspects required detailed examination. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted this issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh examination, directing the assessee to provide relevant materials and comply with the AO's requirements. The AO was instructed to provide adequate opportunity and decide in accordance with law. Regarding the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981, the Tribunal noted that fair market value depends on various factors like location, potentiality, surroundings, court rates for adjacent land, condition of land, development expenditure, and limitations such as legal disputes. The AO cannot determine the fair market value solely based on the guideline value. Consequently, this issue was also remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination, with directions for the assessee to provide materials, the AO to conduct appropriate enquiry, furnish adequate opportunity, and decide in accordance with law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not examined whether the impugned expenditure claimed by the assessees arose out of an overriding title. If the assessees' full ownership right was restricted by the parental deed, it could create an overriding title. These aspects required detailed examination. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted this issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh examination, directing the assessee to provide relevant materials and comply with the AO's requirements. The AO was instructed to provide adequate opportunity and decide in accordance with law. Regarding the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981, the Tribunal noted that fair market value depends on various factors like location, potentiality, surroundings, court rates for adjacent land, condition of land, development expenditure, and limitations such as legal disputes. The AO cannot determine the fair market value solely based on the guideline value. Consequently, this issue was also remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination, with directions for the assessee to provide materials, the AO to conduct appropriate enquiry, furnish adequate opportunity, and decide in accordance with law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, ruling that the reassessment initiated after four years was invalid. The Assessing Officer did not record a clear finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, which is a mandatory condition for such reopening.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not have enabling provisions to levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not valid.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not have enabling provisions to levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not valid.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by directing the reopening of assessments of third parties who were not before him. The Tribunal also noted that a partnership firm may have valid commercial reasons for selling property at a lower price.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions and that the assessment was based on Revenue's investigation without allowing cross-examination of key witnesses. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not have enabling provisions to levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not valid.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not have enabling provisions to levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not valid.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not have enabling provisions to levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not valid.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not have enabling provisions to levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not valid.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not have enabling provisions to levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not valid.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not have enabling provisions to levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not valid.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not have an enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not valid for the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not have enabling provisions to levy fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not valid.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to 2015-16, depreciation on assets treated as application of income is allowable, following the Supreme Court judgment in CIT Vs. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not file valuation reports before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order allowing depreciation was set aside.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to 2015-16, depreciation on assets claimed as application of income is allowable, following the Supreme Court judgment in CIT Vs. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation.

The Tribunal found confusion regarding the outstanding liability and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh examination. The Tribunal also remitted the issue of income classification and Section 14A disallowance back to the AO for proper appreciation of facts.

The Tribunal found confusion regarding the outstanding liability and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh examination. The Tribunal also remitted the issue of income classification and Section 14A disallowance back to the AO for proper appreciation of facts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following various precedents that unabsorbed depreciation, especially after amendments to Section 32(2), can be carried forward indefinitely.

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

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The High Court had found the Tribunal's earlier finding unsupported by reasons and directed reconsideration of the commercial aspect and alternate plea of revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to 2015-16, depreciation on assets claimed as application of income is allowable, following the Supreme Court judgment in CIT Vs. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to 2015-16, depreciation on assets claimed as application of income is allowable, following the Supreme Court judgment in CIT Vs. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation.

The Tribunal found that the Principal Commissioner passed the order under Section 263 on March 22, 2018, without waiting for the scheduled hearing on March 23, 2018, and without considering the assessee's submissions. This was held to be a violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The High Court had found the Tribunal's earlier finding unsupported by reasons and directed reconsideration of the commercial aspect and alternate plea of revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not submit valuation reports during assessment proceedings, and the CIT(A) erroneously stated that the AO did not object to the market value. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had brought the facts to the notice of the AO during assessment proceedings. Following Supreme Court precedent, the issue was remitted to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty, ruling that each assessment year is a separate entity and delay in filing prior year returns does not constitute a reasonable cause for subsequent delays. It also dismissed the assessee's contention that the penalty proceedings were time-barred under Section 275 of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without providing the assessee an opportunity to defend their case by not furnishing the information gathered from the Regional Transport Office. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The tribunal held that interest earned on surplus funds invested in short-term deposits before commencement of business is taxable under 'income from other sources'. Expenses incurred for setting up the business cannot be set off against this interest income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. For the business loss, the AO was directed to pass a speaking order after hearing the assessee. For agricultural income, the assessee was directed to furnish details for verification.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to 2015-16, depreciation on assets treated as application of income is allowable, following the Supreme Court judgment in CIT Vs. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation.

For the damages paid for delayed pension fund contributions, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that it was compensatory interest and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. For the MACT provisions, the Tribunal found the AO's order to be non-speaking and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh examination.