ITAT Chennai Judgments — December 2018

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, directing the assessee and counsel to cooperate promptly.

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to genuine hardships faced by the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to examine the case and the husband's activities in the assessee's name.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit. Therefore, the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT. Therefore, the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that royalty payments linked to turnover are revenue in nature and directed the AO to delete the addition. For management and service charges, the Tribunal found the lower authorities' orders lacked proper examination and remitted the issue back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that royalty payments linked to turnover are revenue in nature and directed the AO to delete the addition. For management and service charges, the Tribunal found the lower authorities' orders lacked proper examination and remitted the issue back to the AO.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs officers to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not provided the assessee with a sufficient opportunity of being heard before confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) may have passed the order without concluding the hearing and giving the assessee a final opportunity. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's plea regarding non-furnishing of relevant material and sworn statements needed consideration. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals in limini. This was due to the persistent failure of the assessee to cure the defects despite being granted adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals in limini. This was due to the persistent failure of the assessee to cure the defects despite being granted adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of proof for the rendition of services by the commission agents, the disallowance of commission payment is justified. Following various High Court decisions, the appeal on this ground was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance can be made, following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals in limini. This was due to the persistent failure of the assessee to cure the defects despite being granted adequate opportunities.

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. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals in limini. This was due to the persistent failure of the assessee to cure the defects despite being granted adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals in limini. This was due to the persistent failure of the assessee to cure the defects despite being granted adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) due to reasons beyond their control. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals in limini. This was due to the persistent failure of the assessee to cure the defects despite being granted adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during search, no addition can be made in search assessments. For regular assessments, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the assessee maintaining proper books of accounts and a favorable profit ratio compared to similar cases.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80JJA, finding the assessee's claim consistent with prior years and sister concern's cases. Additions for understated sales, inflated purchases, and disallowed wages were deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not granted adequate opportunity during the remand proceedings. In the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during search, no addition can be made in search assessments. For regular assessments, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the assessee maintaining proper books of accounts and a favorable profit ratio compared to similar cases.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during search, no addition can be made in search assessments. For regular assessments, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the assessee maintaining proper books of accounts and a favorable profit ratio compared to similar cases.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during search, no addition can be made in search assessments. For regular assessments, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the assessee maintaining proper books of accounts and a favorable profit ratio compared to similar cases.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the investment of Rs. 2,40,433/- could have been accumulated over time, considering the assessee's financial background. The addition was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during search, no addition can be made in search assessments. For regular assessments, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the assessee maintaining proper books of accounts and a favorable profit ratio compared to similar cases.

The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's determination of annual letting value to be erroneous. It held that for vacant property, the annual letting value should be determined under Section 23(1)(c) of the Act, considering the municipal ratable value.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not granted adequate opportunity during the remand proceedings. In the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that adding the entire loan amount to each assessee's income would amount to double taxation. The loan amount should be apportioned between the two shareholders based on their shareholding.

The Tribunal held that adding the entire loan amount to each assessee's income would amount to double taxation. The deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) should be apportioned between the shareholders based on their shareholding.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80JJA, finding the assessee's claim consistent with prior years and sister concern's cases. Additions for understated sales, inflated purchases, and disallowed wages were deleted.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during search, no addition can be made in search assessments. For regular assessments, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the assessee maintaining proper books of accounts and a favorable profit ratio compared to similar cases.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during search, no addition can be made in search assessments. For regular assessments, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the assessee maintaining proper books of accounts and a favorable profit ratio compared to similar cases.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during search, no addition can be made in search assessments. For regular assessments, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the assessee maintaining proper books of accounts and a favorable profit ratio compared to similar cases.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, following a co-ordinate bench decision. The assessee was directed to provide evidence and produce persons involved in the transactions for examination.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was done beyond four years without fresh evidence or failure of disclosure by the assessee. Furthermore, even on merits, interest payments were allowable since interest receipts had already been taxed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide an effective opportunity to the assessee and pass an order on merits.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, following a co-ordinate bench decision. The assessee was directed to provide evidence and produce persons involved in the transactions for examination.

The Tribunal noted that the 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 Department.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding agricultural income, restricting the addition. It dismissed appeals against penalties for cash loans/repayments, finding no reasonable cause for violations. The Tribunal also partly allowed an appeal on capital gains, directing verification of the cost of acquisition.

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 share transactions for examination.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding agricultural income, restricting the addition. It dismissed appeals against penalties for cash loans/repayments, finding no reasonable cause for violations. The Tribunal also partly allowed an appeal on capital gains, directing verification of the cost of acquisition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present her case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to allow the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond four years without any new material and based on a change of opinion is not permissible. The original assessment had already considered the issue in detail.

The Tribunal noted that while improvement alone is not eligible for deduction, new construction after demolition is. The lower authorities did not properly examine this aspect.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not consider the fact that 444 spindles were replaced by 1008 spindles. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal noted that capital gains were assessed for AY 2008-09 based on the agreement for sale. Subsequently, the power of attorney holder executed a sale deed in 2010, leading to the current assessment.

The Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own case for AY 2005-06 and 2007-08, the issue of warranty provision was remitted back to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the orders of both lower authorities and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.