ITAT Chennai Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of offering only 60% of the membership fee in the year of receipt and deferring the balance was consistent with previous Special Bench and Co-ordinate Bench decisions in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the e-filing of the appeal would relate back to the original date of manual filing, thus there was no delay. The CIT(Appeals) should have decided the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal, following the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a similar case, sustained the addition made by the AO, subject to the conditions imposed by the Apex Court.

The Tribunal held that Section 153A cannot be invoked to re-open concluded assessments in the absence of incriminating material found during the search for the relevant assessment years. The additions made by the AO were therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 153A cannot be invoked to re-open concluded assessments in the absence of incriminating material found during the search for the relevant assessment years. The additions made by the AO were therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 153A cannot be invoked to re-open concluded assessments in the absence of incriminating material found during the search for the relevant assessment years. The additions made by the AO were therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the investigation report was not provided to the assessee and the assessee's role in promoting the penny stock or inflating share prices was not established. Following a precedent, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the crucial legal grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to decide these legal grounds along with the merits of the matter.

The Tribunal held that the assessee owned multiple residential properties, including those with land and building, as on the date of sale of the capital asset. Therefore, the denial of exemption under section 54F was upheld.