ITAT Chennai Judgments — December 2018

The Tribunal found that TDS was deducted in one case, recipients paid taxes in two other cases, and PANs were provided for freight charges. These issues required a fresh examination.

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.

The Tribunal held that if partners hold shares for the benefit of the partnership firm, the advance to the firm could be deemed dividend. However, details regarding investment in shares were missing, necessitating re-examination.

The Tribunal noted that while an 'adangal' record showing cultivation was produced before it, it was not submitted to the lower authorities. The Tribunal also found that the lower authorities had not verified if the land fell within the specified limits of a town committee.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any material found during a search operation, no addition can be made under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act. When there are conflicting High Court views, the view favorable to the assessee should be followed.

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 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 found the non-appearance of the assessee's auditor to be on good and sufficient reasons. In the interest of natural justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication.

The appeals for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 were dismissed as withdrawn. For AY 2009-10 to 2011-12, the Assessing Officer's order was set aside, and the issues were restored for re-adjudication with an adequate opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of appeals for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09. For AY 2009-10 to 2011-12, the Assessing Officer's order was set aside, and the issues were restored for re-adjudication with an adequate opportunity for the assessee.

The appeals for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 were dismissed as withdrawn. For AY 2009-10 to 2011-12, the Assessing Officer's order was set aside, and the issues were restored for re-adjudication with an adequate opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular instructs withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. The assessee was permitted to withdraw all its cross objections.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was based on mere suspicion and not on concrete evidence linking the assessees to the alleged racket. The transactions were conducted online with STT paid, and the assessees' names did not appear in any investigation reports.

The tribunal held that 'other income' is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA, but allowed 10% of such income as expenditure. The claim for additional depreciation was dismissed as the assets were not commissioned in the current year. The disallowance of prior period sales price adjustments was allowed as a business loss.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular instructing withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs is binding on the Revenue. The assessee was permitted to withdraw their cross objections.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular instructs withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. The assessee was permitted to withdraw all their cross objections.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, instructing withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs, is binding on the Revenue. The assessee was permitted to withdraw their cross objections.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders, relying on previous decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts. The disallowances related to ESOP, unearned income, and Section 40(a)(ia) were deleted. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 14A and the refusal to allow brought forward unabsorbed depreciation were also decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal found the non-appearance of the assessee's auditor to be on good and sufficient reasons. In the interest of natural justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders, relying on previous decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts. The disallowances related to ESOP, unearned income, and Section 40(a)(ia) were deleted. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 14A and the refusal to allow brought forward unabsorbed depreciation were also decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal found the non-appearance of the assessee's auditor to be on good and sufficient reasons. In the interest of natural justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal found the non-appearance of the assessee's auditor to be on good and sufficient reasons. In the interest of natural justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular instructs withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. The assessee was permitted to withdraw all its cross objections.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular instructs withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. The assessee was permitted to withdraw all its cross objections.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was based on mere suspicion and not on concrete evidence linking the assessees to the alleged racket. The transactions were conducted online with STT paid, and the assessees' names did not appear in any investigation reports.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was based on mere suspicion and not on concrete evidence linking the assessees to the alleged racket. The transactions were conducted online with STT paid, and the assessees' names did not appear in any investigation reports.

The appeals for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 were dismissed as withdrawn. For AY 2009-10 to 2011-12, the Assessing Officer's order was set aside, and the issues were restored for re-adjudication with an adequate opportunity for the assessee.

The appeals for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 were dismissed as withdrawn. For AY 2009-10 to 2011-12, the Assessing Officer's order was set aside, and the issues were restored for re-adjudication with an adequate opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders, relying on previous decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts. The disallowances related to ESOP, unearned income, and Section 40(a)(ia) were deleted. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 14A and the refusal to allow brought forward unabsorbed depreciation were also decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the TPO for de-novo consideration. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the Revenue Authorities.

The Tribunal decided that expenses incurred for increasing authorized share capital are not revenue expenditure. However, other expenses like testing charges and rent, incurred after setting up the business premises and for trial runs, should be considered for business commencement.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objections as belated. Following jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal precedents, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s finding on capital gains but remanded the case for adjudication of other grounds raised before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s observations did not corroborate the AO's findings and that the CIT(A) should have obtained a remand report from the AO. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after obtaining a remand report.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decision in the assessee's case for earlier assessment years. The services rendered were not technical services, and therefore, TDS provisions under Section 195 were not applicable, making Section 40(a)(ia) inapplicable.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's failure to provide confirmations promptly and the fact that the appeal was being heard for the second time after a previous remand, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A). This was to consider new confirmation statements from creditors after obtaining a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that the expenditures were for necessary repairs and modifications to make the leased building suitable for running the hospital, and did not create any new capital asset. The benefit was not enduring, and the nature of expenses was revenue in nature.

The Tribunal held that the Addendum Agreement dated 01.11.2014 should be considered the date of transfer as it fixed the consideration and possession. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54F for all 5 flats.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 lakhs as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the mutual relinquishment of property shares between brothers was a bona fide family arrangement, not a taxable transfer. The issue of cessation of liabilities was remanded for fresh consideration by the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the mutual relinquishment of property shares between brothers was a bona fide family arrangement, not a taxable transfer. The issue of cessation of liabilities was remanded for fresh consideration by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the non-compete fee was a revenue expenditure and should be allowed in one go. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside for that specific ground.

The Tribunal held that the non-compete fee was a revenue expenditure and should be allowed in one go. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside for that specific ground.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot invoke Rule 8D mandatorily without showing the assessee's computation was unsatisfactory. It also ruled that notional interest on advances to a sister concern for commercial purposes is not taxable, citing Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot invoke Rule 8D mandatorily without showing the assessee's computation was unsatisfactory. It also ruled that notional interest on advances to a sister concern for commercial purposes is not taxable, citing Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activity, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to grant the deduction under Section 43B for excise duty paid, again following the High Court's precedent.

The Tribunal held that merely because the property was jointly held with a brother who made no contribution would not disentitle the assessee to the deduction under Section 54F, especially when the assessee made the entire investment. The CIT(A) had followed established judicial precedents.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for prior assessment years was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. Therefore, this issue was also remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2013-14, following jurisdictional High Court decisions on delayed PF/ESI payments. For AY 2014-15, the issue of Section 14A disallowance was remitted back to the AO due to lack of clarity on dividend income and self-disallowance.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2013-14, following jurisdictional High Court decisions on delayed PF/ESI payments. For AY 2014-15, the issue of Section 14A disallowance was remitted back to the AO due to lack of clarity on dividend income and self-disallowance.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment was a change of opinion and unsustainable as the issue was already considered. On merits, the land was considered agricultural as the notification came after the sale, and the deduction under Section 54F was allowed for the residential portion.