ITAT Chennai Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a copy of the investigation report and other relevant materials relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had condoned the delay and treated the return as filed within the due date. However, the CBDT also directed that the allowability of the deduction should be considered on merits by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The issue was covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal and the Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not claimed any commission expenditure and had withdrawn the deduction for donations, the AO's disallowance of commission was baseless. The Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of prior period interest expenses as the liability accrued in a prior year. However, the issue of advances written off was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination due to lack of details.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice clearly indicated proceedings for both concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, as evidenced by the striking off of irrelevant clauses. The assessee's actions constituted both concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars, warranting the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus by furnishing confirmations from the purchasers. The purchasers explained their source of funds under oath, and the Revenue did not provide any material to show undisclosed income. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own case for earlier years, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to examine valuation reports. Following this precedent, the Tribunal remitted the issue of depreciation for the current assessment year back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to reopen the assessment. However, it directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue of treating the special contribution to IRT as capital expenditure on merits. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee, following the Delhi High Court's decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to verify the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and decide the issues afresh.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere. This was based on the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Department's SLP in a similar case where no exempt income was earned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in e-filing, considering it a venial breach, and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal followed precedents that allowed condonation of delay in similar circumstances.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in e-filing, stating it was a venial breach as the manual appeal was filed on time. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering it a venial breach as the manual appeal was filed within time. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the suppliers of raw skins could be considered agents for the purpose of Rule 6DD(k), as they would have purchased from butchers on a cash basis. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40A(3) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that if a trust is liable to tax at the maximum marginal rate under Section 167B, no basic exemption limit is allowed. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee has no merit.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the issues on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after giving the assessee another opportunity to present her case.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of clearing and forwarding charges back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with evidence of TDS payment. However, the disallowance for rental payments was upheld as TDS was remitted in a subsequent year.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals. The Tribunal found no reasonable cause for the 777-day delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), especially since the relevant ITAT decision was available much earlier.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issues on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard. The ex-parte dismissal without considering the grounds was not proper.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals. The Tribunal found no reasonable cause for the 777-day delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), especially since the relevant ITAT decision was available much earlier.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issues on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard. The ex-parte dismissal without considering the grounds was not proper.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issues on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard. The ex-parte dismissal without considering the grounds was not proper.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition as the assessee had provided purchase invoices and transport details, discharging its onus. The Tribunal found no violation of Rule 46A as no additional material was filed before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that electricity consumption alone cannot determine suppressed production, but Customs information must be considered with other evidence. Given the seized documents and disputed lorry registration numbers, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that electricity consumption alone cannot determine suppressed production, but Customs information must be considered with other evidence. Given the seized documents and disputed lorry registration numbers, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that electricity consumption alone cannot determine suppressed production, but Customs information must be considered with other evidence. Given the seized documents and disputed lorry registration numbers, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that electricity consumption alone cannot determine suppressed production, but Customs information must be considered with other evidence. Given the seized documents and disputed lorry registration numbers, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that electricity consumption alone cannot determine suppressed production, but Customs information must be considered with other evidence. Given the seized documents and disputed lorry registration numbers, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that electricity consumption alone cannot determine suppressed production, but Customs information must be considered with other evidence. Given the seized documents and disputed lorry registration numbers, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that electricity consumption alone cannot determine suppressed production, but Customs information must be considered with other evidence. Given the seized documents and disputed lorry registration numbers, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that for several disallowances, the matter needed re-examination by the Assessing Officer due to insufficient material on record. For disallowance of dividend income under Section 14A, the Tribunal restricted it to 2% as Rule 8D was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that parties are free to amicably settle disputes without mandatory arbitration. The claim of expenditure as revenue expenditure in the return of income, even if not fully substantiated, is not a basis for penalty. The CIT(Appeals) rightly deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the land sold was not agricultural in nature and directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the capital gain based on the value shown in the deed of conveyance.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 7,75,606/- considering the income from flower business, family members' income, and the construction of a kalyanamandapam. The reopening of assessment was also confirmed.

The Tribunal held that electricity consumption alone cannot determine suppressed production, but Customs information must be considered with other evidence. Given the seized documents and disputed lorry registration numbers, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that electricity consumption alone cannot determine suppressed production, but Customs information must be considered with other evidence. Given the seized documents and disputed lorry registration numbers, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that electricity consumption alone cannot determine suppressed production, but Customs information must be considered with other evidence. Given the seized documents and disputed lorry registration numbers, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay as the assessee was diligently prosecuting remedies under Section 154. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to accept the assessee's valuation of Rs. 450/- per sq.mtr. for the land, finding it reasonable. Regarding the cross-objection, the Tribunal held that the assessment was validly reopened and that 50% of the cost of improvement should be allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. It held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the addition of Rs. 33,75,750/- on merits, as it was the primary grievance.

The Tribunal held that amenities income should be classified as business income, and expenditure wholly and exclusively relatable to business should be allowed against business income. Depreciation claimed on the building, however, cannot be treated as business expenditure when the property is let out.

The Tribunal held that a building consisting of several residential units can be considered as one house if it has unity of structure and common passage, irrespective of separate municipal numbers or electricity connections. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemption for the entire investment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals), as the first appellate authority, has the power to examine the appeal on merit and must do so even if the assessee fails to appear. Dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without a speaking order or examining the merits is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases and that the claim of purchases going into stock and sales being effected indicated issues with the books of account. Therefore, the disallowances made by the lower authorities were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases and that the claim of purchases going into stock and sales being effected indicated issues with the books of account. Therefore, the disallowances made by the lower authorities were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the drop in Euro rate did not sufficiently explain the drop in net profit, especially since the assessee could not provide supporting documents like sale invoices and receipts. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases and that the claim of purchases going into stock and sales being effected indicated issues with the books of account. Therefore, the disallowances made by the lower authorities were upheld.