ITAT Chennai Judgments — August 2019

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation regarding cash sales and the plausibility of the counter-sale method. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rs. 50 lakhs. Following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates withdrawal of appeals with tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs, the Tribunal held that the Revenue could not proceed further.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's bonafide belief, based on ICAI guidance, that their turnover was below the audit threshold constituted a reasonable cause for non-audit. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was not warranted.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 for filing appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions related to transactions not belonging to the assessee in the undisclosed bank account. For the remaining credits and unexplained expenditures, the Tribunal allowed a set-off of undisclosed income at a 30% GP rate.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in the CBDT circular. As the circular is binding on the Department's officers, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal held that following the CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., the appeals filed by the Revenue were non-maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions related to transactions not belonging to the assessee in the undisclosed bank account. For the remaining credits and unexplained expenditures, the Tribunal allowed a set-off of undisclosed income at a 30% GP rate.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that following the CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., the appeals filed by the Revenue were non-maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions related to transactions not belonging to the assessee in the undisclosed bank account. For the remaining credits and unexplained expenditures, the Tribunal allowed a set-off of undisclosed income at a 30% GP rate.

The Tribunal held that Rule 8D is prospective and not applicable before AY 2008-09, directing a 2% disallowance for AY 2007-08. For AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10, Rule 8D was correctly applied. Reimbursement of travel charges to non-residents was not subject to TDS and disallowance was deleted. Disallowance of commission paid to non-residents was also deleted as it was considered sales promotion. Provisions for incentive on coupon sales were disallowed as contingent liabilities.

The Tribunal, following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit should not be filed or pressed. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions related to transactions not belonging to the assessee in the undisclosed bank account. For the remaining credits and unexplained expenditures, the Tribunal allowed a set-off of undisclosed income at a 30% GP rate.

The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions related to transactions not belonging to the assessee in the undisclosed bank account. For the remaining credits and unexplained expenditures, the Tribunal allowed a set-off of undisclosed income at a 30% GP rate.

The Tribunal, following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit should not be filed or pressed. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit should not be filed or pressed. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that Rule 8D is prospective and not applicable before AY 2008-09, directing a 2% disallowance for AY 2007-08. For AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10, Rule 8D was correctly applied. Reimbursement of travel charges to non-residents was not subject to TDS and disallowance was deleted. Disallowance of commission paid to non-residents was also deleted as it was considered sales promotion. Provisions for incentive on coupon sales were disallowed as contingent liabilities.

The Tribunal, following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit should not be filed or pressed. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that Rule 8D is prospective and not applicable before AY 2008-09, directing a 2% disallowance for AY 2007-08. For AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10, Rule 8D was correctly applied. Reimbursement of travel charges to non-residents was not subject to TDS and disallowance was deleted. Disallowance of commission paid to non-residents was also deleted as it was considered sales promotion. Provisions for incentive on coupon sales were disallowed as contingent liabilities.

The Tribunal held that Rule 8D is prospective and not applicable before AY 2008-09, directing a 2% disallowance for AY 2007-08. For AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10, Rule 8D was correctly applied. Reimbursement of travel charges to non-residents was not subject to TDS and disallowance was deleted. Disallowance of commission paid to non-residents was also deleted as it was considered sales promotion. Provisions for incentive on coupon sales were disallowed as contingent liabilities.

The Tribunal held that following the CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., the appeals filed by the Revenue were non-maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit should not be filed or pressed. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that following the CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., the appeals filed by the Revenue were non-maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit should not be filed or pressed. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit should not be filed or pressed. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with all four conditions stipulated under Section 271AAA(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271AAA was not sustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte decision by the CIT(A) based on a case involving the Revenue was unsustainable and restored the issues for re-adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine (at the outset) due to the un-cured defects. This decision was based on the principles laid down by the jurisdictional High Court.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the new evidence and provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as non-maintainable, following a CBDT circular that mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold. The assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It also directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits, as the previous order was ex-parte and did not address the substantive grounds.

The Tribunal held that the e-filed appeal relates back to the manual filing date, meaning there was no delay. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was unsustainable and the appeals were restored for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were time-barred and the defects, specifically the non-filing of an affidavit for condonation of delay, were not cured. Following the principles laid down by the jurisdictional High Court, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn and the assessee's cross-objections as infructuous, following a CBDT circular that mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the Form 10 and its enclosures, allowing the relief if found in accordance with law, after providing the assessee an opportunity to present relevant material.

The Tribunal held that Section 44AA of the Income Tax Act mandates maintaining books of accounts only for prescribed assessees. Since the assessee was not a prescribed assessee, no penalty could be levied under Section 271A for not maintaining books of accounts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte decision by the CIT(A) based on a case involving the Revenue was unsustainable and restored the issues for re-adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were time-barred and the defects, specifically the non-filing of an affidavit for condonation of delay, were not cured. Following the principles laid down by the jurisdictional High Court, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte decision by the CIT(A) based on a case involving the Revenue was unsustainable and restored the issues for re-adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were non-maintainable in light of the CBDT circular and the concession made by both parties. Consequently, the cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were non-maintainable in light of the CBDT circular and the concession made by both parties. Consequently, the cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte decision by the CIT(A) based on a case involving the Revenue was unsustainable and restored the issues for re-adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was made primarily on the basis of revenue investigations without giving the assessee a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The matter was remitted back to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was non-maintainable in light of the CBDT circular and the concession made by both parties regarding the tax effect. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the e-filed appeal relates back to the manual filing date, meaning there was no delay. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was unsustainable and the appeals were restored for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the e-filed appeal relates back to the manual filing date, meaning there was no delay. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was unsustainable and the appeals were restored for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not examined the details filed by the assessee. To ensure principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after considering the assessee's details.

The Tribunal, following a CBDT circular and a Supreme Court decision, held that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/- should be dismissed. The related cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal, following a CBDT circular and a Supreme Court decision, held that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/- should be dismissed. The related cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.