ITAT Chennai Judgments — November 2018

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.

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.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove a reasonable cause for receiving cash loans in violation of Section 269SS. The Tribunal also found that the repayment of these loans in cash violated Section 269T, and thus the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were upheld.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided sufficient material to the lower authorities. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for examination and verification regarding the taxability of payments to non-residents in India.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove a reasonable cause for receiving cash loans in violation of Section 269SS. The Tribunal also found that the repayment of these loans in cash violated Section 269T, and thus the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove a reasonable cause for receiving cash loans in violation of Section 269SS. The Tribunal also found that the repayment of these loans in cash violated Section 269T, and thus the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove a reasonable cause for receiving cash loans in violation of Section 269SS. The Tribunal also found that the repayment of these loans in cash violated Section 269T, and thus the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove a reasonable cause for receiving cash loans in violation of Section 269SS. The Tribunal also found that the repayment of these loans in cash violated Section 269T, and thus the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove a reasonable cause for receiving cash loans in violation of Section 269SS. The Tribunal also found that the repayment of these loans in cash violated Section 269T, and thus the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove a reasonable cause for receiving cash loans in violation of Section 269SS. The Tribunal also found that the repayment of these loans in cash also violated Section 269T, and thus the penalties under Section 271D and 271E were justified.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed sufficient cash availability to cover the deposits. Since the CIT(A) did not provide an effective opportunity of being heard, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove a reasonable cause for receiving cash loans in violation of Section 269SS. The Tribunal also found that the repayment of these loans in cash violated Section 269T, and thus the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove a reasonable cause for receiving cash loans in violation of Section 269SS. The Tribunal also found that the repayment of these loans in cash violated Section 269T, and thus the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were upheld.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination and a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove a reasonable cause for receiving cash loans in violation of Section 269SS. The Tribunal also found that the repayment of these loans in cash violated Section 269T, and thus the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove a reasonable cause for receiving cash loans in violation of Section 269SS. The Tribunal also found that the repayment of these loans in cash violated Section 269T, and thus the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove a reasonable cause for receiving cash loans in violation of Section 269SS. The Tribunal also found that the repayment of these loans in cash violated Section 269T, and thus the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were upheld.

The Tribunal held that it is not a requirement of Section 54F that construction cannot commence prior to the date of transfer of the asset. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the deduction even if construction was completed before the sale.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s directions to verify documents were within his powers and not a setting aside order. The Tribunal allowed one more opportunity to the assessee to prove gifts and partly allowed the claim for personal expenses.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the tax effect was less than the prescribed limit. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly allowed the claim of expenditure towards the purchase of music rights as revenue expenditure, following its own previous decisions. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than ₹20,00,000/-. Following CBDT Circular No.3/2018, appeals below this limit are to be withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the claim for music rights as revenue expenditure, following its own previous decisions. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, as the assessee's objections were valid and the AO was given a reasonable opportunity to re-examine the case in the remand report.

The Tribunal held that assessments cannot be based on mere suspicion or unverified information. The AO failed to conduct proper scrutiny and relied on information that could not be used as evidence against the assessee without cross-examination.

The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowances were made without proper inquiry, without putting findings to the assessee for rebuttal, and without examining relevant parties. The basis for estimating profit per litre was also unclear.

The Tribunal held that the intimation demanding fees 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 found merit in the Revenue's submission, noting that a similar issue for a prior assessment year was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the issues back to the AO for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that assessments cannot be based on mere suspicion or unverified information. The AO failed to conduct proper scrutiny and relied on information that could not be used as evidence against the assessee without cross-examination.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for the late fee 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 held that once the CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside by the ITAT, the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer had no basis. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in setting aside the Assessing Officer's order.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission, noting that a similar issue for a prior assessment year was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the issues back to the AO for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary evidence to substantiate the claim and produce persons involved in the transactions for examination.

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

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary evidence to substantiate the claim and produce persons involved in the transactions for examination.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities did not properly examine the applicability of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) and the 'making available' clause for AMC payments. Similarly, for software license fees, the nature of the software (embedded vs. standalone) was not adequately analyzed.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This was to re-examine the disallowance under Section 14A in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This was to re-examine the disallowance under Section 14A in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow expenses related to movie purchases and production, and deferred revenue expenditure, citing previous consistent rulings. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on Section 14A disallowance, holding that investments in subsidiaries, even for control, attract the provision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly allowed the claim of expenditure towards the purchase of music rights as revenue expenditure, following its own previous decisions. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the claim of expenditure towards the purchase of music rights as revenue expenditure, following previous tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the claim for a 26% estimation for the current assessment year. Each year is separate and an estimate cannot be constant.

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 Revenue officers. Therefore, the appeal could not proceed.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute capital gains based on the actual sale consideration of Rs. 25 lakhs, following a co-ordinate bench decision. However, the claim for deduction under Section 54F was denied as the investment was not in the assessee's name.

The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer (AO) for re-adjudication. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to substantiate its case, including producing relevant persons for examination.

The Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessment was permissible under Explanation-2(c)(iv) of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, as excessive depreciation had been computed.

The Tribunal found the case similar to a previous one where facts were not sufficiently established. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication with directions to the assessee to provide evidence and produce persons involved in the transactions.

The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer was directed to furnish the investigation report and recorded statements to the assessees and conduct a thorough investigation into the penny stock companies.

The Tribunal held that while returns filed in response to Section 148 notices are valid, failure to pay tax on the returned income before filing an appeal before the CIT(A) leads to the non-admission of such appeals. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were deemed erroneous.

The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer was directed to furnish the investigation report and recorded statements to the assessees and conduct a thorough investigation into the penny stock companies.