ITAT Chennai Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal followed CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 50,00,000. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal followed CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 50,00,000. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal followed CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 50,00,000. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal followed CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 50,00,000. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's circular increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to ₹50 lakhs and instructed withdrawal of appeals below this limit. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that it is the Assessing Officer's duty to provide the assessee with the reasons for reopening the assessment. Since this was not done, the re-assessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the compensation was paid towards the termination of a long-term lease, as per the MOU, and not as part of the sale consideration. It further held that compensation received for the loss of a source of income is a capital receipt and not liable to tax.

The Tribunal held that while filing an audit report is mandatory, the time limit for filing is discretionary. Since the audit report was available before the assessment was completed, the penalty under Section 271B was not warranted.

The Tribunal followed CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 50,00,000. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's circular increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to ₹50 lakhs and instructed withdrawal of appeals below this limit. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years. These decisions had consistently held that the transactions with the specified entities were genuine business transactions for valid consideration.

The Tribunal followed CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 50,00,000. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn, following CBDT circulars that mandate not pressing appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold. The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine due to unrectified defects.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn, following CBDT circulars that mandate not pressing appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold. The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine due to unrectified defects.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals in limine due to the failure of the assessee to cure the defects. The decision was based on the principle that appeals with unrectified defects cannot be entertained.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates dismissal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lacs.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. The property was held as an investment and the assessee had not engaged in any construction activity, thus the sale rightly resulted in capital gains.

The Tribunal held that appeals should not be dismissed on technicalities like delay without considering the merits. Therefore, the issue of delay was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that appeals should not be dismissed on technicalities like delay without considering the merits. Therefore, the issue of delay was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that appeals should not be dismissed on technicalities like delay without considering the merits. Therefore, the issue of delay was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates dismissal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lacs.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 as the AO had already examined the issue and taken a view that the contributions were not taxable in the hands of the assessee. The contributions were also approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. This decision was based on the principle that an appeal can be dismissed for uncured defects, as per the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals in limine due to the failure of the assessee to cure the defects. The decision was based on the principle that appeals with unrectified defects cannot be entertained.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn, following CBDT circulars that mandate not pressing appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold. The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine due to unrectified defects.

The Tribunal noted that the argument for presumptive taxation under Section 44AE was a new one, not raised before the Assessing Officer. However, considering the ex-parte assessment and lack of representation, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication in the interest of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the difference, citing unreceived credit/debit notes and the nature of continuous business transactions through banking channels, was plausible. Therefore, the penalty was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that income offered to tax in earlier years cannot be taxed again, and similarly, income offered in subsequent years should not be taxed in the current year. The Tribunal accepted the income offered by the assessee under the presumptive rate as reasonable, disallowing further additions.

The Tribunal held that even if a revised return is not valid in law, the AO is expected to consider the information contained within it for assessment. The AO should compute the income in accordance with the Act, and proceedings are not adversarial.

The Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(A) that adequate opportunity was given to the assessee. In the absence of any evidence produced by the assessee to rebut the additions, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the shares were held as stock-in-trade, as evidenced by their debit to the Profit & Loss account. Consequently, the gains arising from their sale were liable to be taxed as business income, and the exemption under Section 10(38) was not available.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 50 lakhs, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which instructs to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs, is binding on the Revenue's officers. Therefore, the appeal could not proceed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was made primarily on the basis of investigation reports 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 AO had taken upon himself the onus to disprove the genuineness of the donations without giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to prove them. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, finding no merit in the grounds challenging the disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s directions regarding the restriction of disallowance and its exclusion from book profits.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which instructs officers to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on share application money, which was statutorily required to be kept in a separate account, is inextricably linked to the company's requirement to raise share capital. Therefore, it is adjustable against public issue expenses and not taxable as income.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, finding no merit in the grounds challenging the disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s directions regarding the restriction of disallowance and its exclusion from book profits.

The Tribunal held that the AO had taken upon himself the onus to disprove the genuineness of the donations without giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to prove them. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and the assessment was based on investigation reports without providing them to the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was made primarily based on investigation reports 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, requiring the assessee to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the AO to provide the investigation report and other evidence for rebuttal.

The Tribunal held that the nomination fees were a genuine business expenditure incurred to secure business and avoid competition, following a previous decision on similar facts. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1) of the Act. The penalty orders were passed after the expiry of the prescribed time limit following the appellate order on the quantum additions.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not granted sufficient opportunity of being heard and that the submissions of the assessee were not controverted. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the nomination fees were a genuine business expenditure incurred to secure business and avoid competition, following a previous decision on similar facts. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the revision order under Section 263 was not barred by limitation and that the PCIT had not introduced new grounds for revision without notice. The PCIT's observation that the reconciliation statement was not properly examined by the AO was found to be correct.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea of unavoidable circumstances, granted one more opportunity to substantiate the case before the AO. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside and the issue was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's frequent share transactions with short holding periods indicated trading activity, not investment. Therefore, the income from these transactions was rightly assessed as business income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1) of the Act. The penalty orders were passed after the expiry of the prescribed time limit following the appellate order on the quantum additions.