ITAT Chennai Judgments — August 2019

The Tribunal heard both sides and perused the materials. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous decision in the assessee's own case for the preceding assessment year. Following that precedent, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit under Section 44BBB.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine because the defects in the filing were not cured by the assessee. The appeal was not heard on its merits due to these procedural deficiencies.

The Tribunal decided to restore Ground No. 3 to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. This was done considering that the main issues were already restored to the AO and the issue in Ground No. 3 was also pending before the AO via a rectification application.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions and that the assessment was based on internal Revenue investigations without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine or rebut the evidence. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were conducted through the BSE and the assessee's name was not implicated in any investigation reports. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the penalty was not leviable as the assessee had withdrawn the claim and there was no evidence of mala fide intention or concealment of income. The CIT(A) had also correctly followed established judicial precedents.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had answered the queries raised by the CIT(E) and that the CIT(E)'s statement of incompleteness was unsubstantiated. Consequently, the order rejecting the registration was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition should be considered as per the original owner's cost, meaning the value as on 01.04.1981, and not the date of inheritance. The Assessing Officer failed to consider relevant factors for estimating this value.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without a merit-based decision. It also found that the Assessing Officer did not consider all factors for determining fair market value and that Section 50C was not properly examined.

The Tribunal noted that reconciliation statements for investment shortfalls were produced for the first time. In the interest of natural justice, all appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a copy of the investigation report and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue. The Assessing Officer was instructed to furnish the investigation report and other relevant materials to the assessee before deciding afresh.

The Tribunal held that the investigation report was not furnished to the assessee and set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report and details of inquiries, which is a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.

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

The assessee's counsel prayed to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal decided to restore the issue of exemption on capital receipts to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure natural justice and allow the AO to examine the evidence, preventing the Tribunal's finding from pre-judging the AO's assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the Molasses Control Order, which the assessee claimed restricted free trade, was not produced. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after examining the said order and any new material from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that not furnishing the investigation report to the assessee violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal held that not furnishing the investigation report to the assessee violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271D needs to be re-examined in light of the remittance of the quantum addition. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that reconciliation statements for investment shortfalls were produced for the first time. In the interest of natural justice, all appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income and restored the issue to the AO for re-determination. It also held that the disallowance under Section 14A should not be added to book profit under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that the retrospective amendment made in 2012 cannot be applied to penalize the assessee for non-deduction of tax in assessment year 2010-11, as the payment was made before the amendment.

The Tribunal found a clear violation of Rule 46A as the CIT(Appeals) did not provide the Assessing Officer an opportunity to controvert the additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing substantial justice over technicality. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits as the lower appellate authority had dismissed the appeal without considering the merits.

The Tribunal found a clear violation of Rule 46A as the CIT(Appeals) did not provide the Assessing Officer an opportunity to controvert the additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for a prior assessment year was remitted back to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, for the current year, the matter was also remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to explain the difference between the invoice value and the admitted value of goods. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that giving the assessee one more opportunity to furnish necessary details regarding loan interest and cost of improvement would promote justice. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the Molasses Control Order, which the assessee claimed restricted free trade, was not produced. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after examining the said order and any new material from the assessee.

The Tribunal found a clear violation of Rule 46A as the CIT(Appeals) did not provide the Assessing Officer an opportunity to controvert the additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found a clear violation of Rule 46A as the CIT(Appeals) did not provide the Assessing Officer an opportunity to controvert the additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found a clear violation of Rule 46A as the CIT(Appeals) did not provide the Assessing Officer an opportunity to controvert the additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found a clear violation of Rule 46A as the CIT(Appeals) did not provide the Assessing Officer an opportunity to controvert the additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found a clear violation of Rule 46A as the CIT(Appeals) did not provide the Assessing Officer an opportunity to controvert the additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found a clear violation of Rule 46A as the CIT(Appeals) did not provide the Assessing Officer an opportunity to controvert the additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found a clear violation of Rule 46A as the CIT(Appeals) did not provide the Assessing Officer an opportunity to controvert the additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found a clear violation of Rule 46A as the CIT(Appeals) did not provide the Assessing Officer an opportunity to controvert the additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found a clear violation of Rule 46A as the CIT(Appeals) did not provide the Assessing Officer an opportunity to controvert the additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found a clear violation of Rule 46A as the CIT(Appeals) did not provide the Assessing Officer an opportunity to controvert the additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found a clear violation of Rule 46A as the CIT(Appeals) did not provide the Assessing Officer an opportunity to controvert the additional evidence. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that reconciliation statements for investment shortfalls were produced for the first time. In the interest of natural justice, all appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that reconciliation statements for investment shortfalls were produced for the first time. In the interest of natural justice, all appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that not furnishing the investigation report to the assessee violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.