ITAT Chennai Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea of unavoidable circumstances for not appearing before the lower authorities, decided to grant one more opportunity. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

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 Assessing Officer did not dispute the availability of interest-free funds to the assessee. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if sufficient interest-free funds were available for the investment and if not, to ascertain and disallow interest on borrowed funds used for investment.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) was correct in disallowing exemption for construction completed before the sale, the amount spent on construction after the sale should be allowed. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of post-sale construction expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the cost of construction on leasehold land is revenue expenditure, as the assessee did not acquire a capital asset and the construction was for business advantage. The incentive received for exploring new markets was held to be a capital receipt.

The Tribunal held that the cost of construction on leasehold land was revenue expenditure, similar to the facts in Supreme Court and High Court judgments. It also held that the incentive received for exploring new markets was a capital receipt, following its own prior decision.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the turnover should be taxed, not the entire deposit. The assessee had offered 8% of the turnover as profit during assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on roads can be claimed under the category of 'building' based on earlier decisions in the assessee's own case and a Supreme Court judgment. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that while Section 14A is applicable as exempt income was earned, the calculation of disallowance needs to consider only investments yielding exempt income. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for recalculation.

The Tribunal held that while Section 14A is applicable as exempt income was earned, the calculation of disallowance needs to consider only investments yielding exempt income. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for recalculation.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not in accordance with law, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The assessee is entitled to deduction if the employee's contribution is remitted before the due date of filing the return of income.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. The assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT, is binding on the revenue officers. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with.

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 limits should be dismissed or withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that advancing money to related parties did not constitute a continuous and systematic business activity. Therefore, the interest income was rightly assessed under 'Income from Other Sources'.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not in accordance with law, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The assessee is entitled to deduction if the employee's contribution is remitted before the due date of filing the return of income.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT, is binding on the revenue officers. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) considered fresh evidence without obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) considered fresh evidence without obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in directing the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA as the conditions for its applicability were not met. Consequently, the original penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals and instructed withdrawal of appeals with tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal held that in light of the CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., the appeals filed by the Revenue were non-maintainable. The related cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Revenue's officers and that the appeal cannot be proceeded with. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that merely agreeing to an addition does not automatically imply concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of corroborative evidence of malafides, the penalty cannot be upheld.

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, following a CBDT circular and a Supreme Court decision, held that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/- are non-maintainable. The cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since depreciation was claimed on the entire capitalized amount including land, and no bifurcation was provided, the AO was right in treating the land value as Nil for capital gains. The claim for deduction under Section 80G was also not allowed as it was not made in the original return.

The Tribunal, following a CBDT circular and a Supreme Court decision, held that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/- are non-maintainable. The cross-objection was 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/- are non-maintainable. The cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal, following the CBDT circular and a Supreme Court decision, held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit are not maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following the CBDT circular and a Supreme Court decision, held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit are not maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following the CBDT circular and a Supreme Court decision, held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit are not maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following the CBDT circular and a Supreme Court decision, held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit are not maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following the CBDT circular and a Supreme Court decision, held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit are not maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following the CBDT circular and a Supreme Court decision, held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit are not maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following the CBDT circular and a Supreme Court decision, held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit are not maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following the CBDT circular and a Supreme Court decision, held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit are not maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following the CBDT circular and a Supreme Court decision, held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit are not maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since depreciation was claimed on the entire capitalized amount including land, and no bifurcation was provided, the AO was right in treating the land value as Nil for capital gains. The claim for deduction under Section 80G was also not allowed as it was not made in the original return.

The Tribunal held that since depreciation was claimed on the entire capitalized amount including land, and no bifurcation was provided, the AO was right in treating the land value as Nil for capital gains. The claim for deduction under Section 80G was also not allowed as it was not made in the original return.

The Tribunal held that since depreciation was claimed on the entire capitalized amount including land, and no bifurcation was provided, the AO was right in treating the land value as Nil for capital gains. The claim for deduction under Section 80G was also not allowed as it was not made in the original return.

The Tribunal, following the CBDT circular and a Supreme Court decision, held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit are not maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not produce adangal extracts, the cultivation of turmeric, sugarcane, and paddy alongside coconut trees was not disputed by the Revenue. Therefore, an estimation of ₹75,000 per acre would meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal found that crucial aspects like the nature of security for loans, purpose of investments, and entitlement to interest on advances were not adequately enquired into. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer were barred by limitation as they were made beyond the two-year period prescribed under Section 201(3) of the Act for filing TDS statements. Consequently, the tax and interest demands were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer were barred by limitation as they were made beyond the two-year period prescribed under Section 201(3) of the Act for filing TDS statements. Consequently, the tax and interest demands were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not properly examined the issue of retention money and its accounting treatment. Therefore, the order passed by the Principal CIT under Section 263 was not found to be infirm.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer were barred by limitation as they were made beyond the two-year period prescribed under Section 201(3) of the Act for filing TDS statements. Consequently, the tax and interest demands were deleted.

The Tribunal found that crucial aspects like the nature of security for loans, purpose of investments, and entitlement to interest on advances were not adequately enquired into. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reliance on SRO guideline values for a later period (1989-90) to determine the cost of acquisition for an earlier period (1981-82) was incorrect. The AO's calculation of LTCG was therefore not justified.