ITAT Chennai Judgments — September 2019

FIVE STAR MARINE EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

ITA 965/CHNY/2018[2004-05]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2019AY 2004-05Dismissed

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's disallowances did not result in any additional demand or liability for the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

KATHIRAVAN PAPER & BOARDS PRIVATE LIMITED,TIRUNELVELI vs DCIT SPECIAL RANGE II, MADURAI

ITA 1642/CHNY/2007[1989-90]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2019AY 1989-90Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the assessee's explanation was not properly considered, and they were not afforded an opportunity of being heard. The Assessing Officer failed to prove concealment of income with definite findings.

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI vs MAHASEMAM TRUST, MADURAI

ITA 1323/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2019AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the issues were covered by its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. In that decision, the Tribunal had allowed the benefit of Sections 11 & 12, stating that micro-financing for the poor is a charitable activity and that the generation of surplus does not negate the trust's objects.

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI vs MAHASEMAM TRUST, MADURAI

ITA 1325/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2019AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the issues were covered by its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. In that decision, the Tribunal had allowed the benefit of Sections 11 & 12, stating that micro-financing for the poor is a charitable activity and that the generation of surplus does not negate the trust's objects.

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI vs MAHASEMAM TRUST, MADURAI

ITA 1324/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2019AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the issues were covered by its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. In that decision, the Tribunal had allowed the benefit of Sections 11 & 12, stating that micro-financing for the poor is a charitable activity and that the generation of surplus does not negate the trust's objects.

K MOHAN,CHENNAI vs ACIT, CW 22(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1141/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide an explanation for the difference between the original and revised income, deeming it concealed income. However, the penalty should be computed only on the tax sought to be evaded on the undisclosed income.

ANNASWAMY SURESH,CHENNAI vs ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 3(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1154/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the facts and circumstances surrounding the investment were not clearly established. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 13(1), CHENNAI vs INDIYA JANANAYAKA KATCHI, CHENNAI

ITA 1052/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that the appeals were non-maintainable in light of the CBDT circular and Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR -2(3), CHENNAI vs CHANDAN CREDITS LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 49/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing appeals before it when the tax effect was less than the monetary limit of ₹.50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as un-admitted.

M/S SPIC HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENT LTD (MERGED WITH SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICALS INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD),CHENNAI vs ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI

ITA 780/CHNY/2018[2003-04]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2003-04Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO relied on the same materials considered during the original assessment and failed to record any reasons for the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reassessment notice under Section 148 lacked jurisdiction.

ACIT CIRCLE 1, TRICHY vs JENNYS HOTEL (P) LTD., TRICHY

ITA 897/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not to file or press appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also granted liberty to the Revenue to seek recall if certain exceptions apply.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(3), CHENNAI vs FATEH LEASING AND FINANCE P LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 35/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing appeals before it when the tax effect was less than the monetary limit of ₹.50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as un-admitted.

ACIT, TRICHY vs V. DAMOTHARAN, TRICHY

ITA 3295/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, noting that the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The issues raised were left open for future examination.

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), CHENNAI vs RITIKA RAI, CHENNAI

ITA 155/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing appeals before it when the tax effect was less than the monetary limit of ₹.50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as un-admitted.

JCIT, CORP CIR -2(1), CHENNAI vs ENVESTOR VENTURES LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 568/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2015-16Dismissed

The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to the amount of exempt income earned, which was Rs. 2,58,225/-, following the Supreme Court decision in PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE vs SHRI MASANIYAMMAN THUNAI SPINNING MILLS PVT. LIMITED, COIMBATORE

ITA 1656/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Department's officers. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.

DCIT, CHENNAI vs RUPAL RAI, CHENNAI

ITA 154/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing appeals before it when the tax effect was less than the monetary limit of ₹.50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as un-admitted.

D.K.HEATERS,CHENNAI vs DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE -1, CHENNAI

ITA 2285/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted additional grounds. It noted that the AO and CIT(A) did not refer the matter to a Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the fair market value of the building.

ACIT, TRICHY vs R. MAHESWARI, TRICHY

ITA 3294/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, taking note of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future examination.

ACIT, TRICHY vs S. KAMALA, TRICHY

ITA 3290/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that the appeals were non-maintainable in light of the CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

SUMMIT ONLINE TRADE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3)(I/C), CHENNAI

ITA 1081/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the service tax refund of ₹.77.80 crores could not be taxed as it was not actually received or accrued in the assessment year. However, the remaining difference in admitted income was confirmed.

JCIT (OSD), LTU-2, CHENNAI vs M/S SHREE AMBIKA SUGARS LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 1764/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2010-11Dismissed

The CIT(A) followed a Special Bench decision and held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added to book profits under Section 115JB. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) and found no reason to interfere.

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 13(1), CHENNAI vs INDIYA JANANAYAKA KATCHI, CHENNAI

ITA 1051/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that the appeals were non-maintainable in light of the CBDT circular and Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

ACIT, TRICHY vs V. HARIKRISHNAN, TRICHY

ITA 3296/CHNY/2018[A.Y- 2012-13,]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing appeals before it when the tax effect was less than the monetary limit of ₹.50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as un-admitted.

ACIT, TRICHY vs S. GANAPATHY, TRICHY

ITA 3293/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, noting that the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The issues raised were left open for future examination.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR -2(3), CHENNAI vs CHANDAN CREDITS LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 48/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing appeals before it when the tax effect was less than the monetary limit of ₹.50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as un-admitted.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY vs S ASHOK KUMAR, TRICHY

ITA 3285/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that the appeals were non-maintainable in light of the CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

ACIT, TRICHY vs V. HARIKRISHNAN (HUF), TRICHY

ITA 3292/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI vs M.SIVARAMAKRISHNAN, MADURAI

ITA 1152/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal, following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The circular liberalized the policy for not filing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold.

ACIT CIRCLE 1, TRICHY vs JENNYS HOTEL (P) LTD., TRICHY

ITA 898/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not to file or press appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also granted liberty to the Revenue to seek recall if certain exceptions apply.

ACIT, TRICHY vs V. RAMESH (HUF), TRICHY

ITA 3289/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that the appeals were non-maintainable in light of the CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE vs SAKTHI SUGARS LTD., COIMBATORE

ITA 2985/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing appeals before it when the tax effect was less than the monetary limit of ₹.50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as un-admitted.

ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, CHENNAI vs V R VARADARAJ, COIMBATORE

ITA 20/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing appeals before it when the tax effect was less than the monetary limit of ₹.50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as un-admitted.

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS LTD., COIMBATORE

ITA 1458/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing appeals before it when the tax effect was less than the monetary limit of ₹.50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as un-admitted.

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 13(1), CHENNAI vs INDIYA JANANAYAKA KATCHI, CHENNAI

ITA 1050/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that the appeals were non-maintainable in light of the CBDT circular and Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-2(4), CHENNAI vs SHRI KAVERI COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, CHENNAI

ITA 1624/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not to file or press appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also granted liberty to the Revenue to seek recall if certain exceptions apply.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MADURAI vs M SIVARAMAKRISHNAN, MADURAI

ITA 203/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not to file or press appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also granted liberty to the Revenue to seek recall if certain exceptions apply.

ACIT, TRICHY vs P. SARANYA, TRICHY

ITA 3291/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

ACIT, TRICHY vs V. RAMESH, TRICHY

ITA 3288/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that the appeals were non-maintainable in light of the CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

ITA 440/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not to file or press appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also granted liberty to the Revenue to seek recall if certain exceptions apply.

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE vs BAKGIYAM ENGINEERING P. LTD., COIMBATORE

ITA 1872/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not to file or press appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also granted liberty to the Revenue to seek recall if certain exceptions apply.

K.V.RAMANA SHETTY,CHENNAI vs DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2896/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(iii) should not include amounts already considered under Rule 8D(ii) as modified by the CIT(A). The disallowance under Rule 8D(iii) should be calculated based on the remaining expenses after considering the disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) and the amount already disallowed by the assessee.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs J S NIHAR BANU, PALAKKAD

ITA 443/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2019AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not to file or press appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also granted liberty to the Revenue to seek recall if certain exceptions apply.

ACIT, CHENNAI vs M/S. BRAKES INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 1561/CHNY/2008[1991-92]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2019AY 1991-92Withdrawn

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable in light of the CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs INDIA PISTON LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 2383/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for Section 14A disallowance, only investments yielding exempt income should be considered. The issue of export promotion expenditure was remanded for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss under Section 72A was upheld.

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE vs SAKTHI CONSTRUCTIONS, ERODE

ITA 2634/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2019AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue liberty to seek recall of dismissal for cases inadvertently included or covered by exceptions.

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE vs SAKTHI CONSTRUCTIONS, ERODE

ITA 2633/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2019AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue liberty to seek recall of dismissal for cases inadvertently included or covered by exceptions.

V.RAMMOHAN,CHENNAI vs ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 288/CHNY/2016[2005-06]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2019AY 2005-06Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification. The AO needs to ascertain if the Rs. 25 lakhs was considered in the computation of capital gains for AY 2007-08. If not, it should be considered for AY 2005-06.

ACIT NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI vs UNITED INDUSTRIES, CHENNAI

ITA 472/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2019AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue liberty to seek recall of dismissal for cases inadvertently included or covered by exceptions.

ACIT, CHENNAI vs M/S. BRAKES INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 1562/CHNY/2008[1992-93]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2019AY 1992-93Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, following a CBDT circular that mandated not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue liberty to seek recall of dismissal for cases inadvertently included or covered by exceptions.