ITAT Chennai Judgments — September 2019

The Tribunal found that the validity of reopening of assessment under Section 153C was questionable due to lack of clarity on search materials. Regarding the disallowance, the Tribunal noted conflicting High Court judgments on the retrospective applicability of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) and the need to verify if recipients had paid taxes.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C mandates a reference to the VO when the assessee objects to the guideline value. Since the AO failed to do so, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for past savings and that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified. The claim of savings could not be faulted.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates withdrawal of 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 investigation report and other materials relied upon by the Assessing Officer were not furnished to the assessee. Therefore, the matter needs re-examination after providing these materials to the assessee.

The tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, following previous coordinate bench decisions. The AO was directed to consider the assessee's role in share transactions and provide necessary opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report and details of inquiries made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report and details of inquiries, which prejudiced their case. Therefore, the matter needed to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than ₹50 lakhs. Following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates withdrawal of appeals with tax effect below ₹50 lakhs, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The CIT(A) had followed these precedents in granting the exemption.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The CIT(A) had followed these precedents in granting the exemption.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than ₹50 lakhs. Following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates withdrawal of appeals with tax effect below ₹50 lakhs, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 instructs officers to withdraw appeals pending before the ITAT where the tax effect is less than ₹50 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the Department.

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

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failure to issue a show cause notice before enhancing the assessment was a rectifiable error. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to issue the mandatory notice and decide afresh.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For interest levy, the matter was remitted to the AO for re-examination. Additions related to share premium, excise duty, and unexplained investment were confirmed. The claim for set-off of brought forward losses was disallowed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The AO was directed to gather more evidence regarding the assessee's role in the company and the transaction's genuineness, and to provide the assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine relevant parties.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For interest levy, the matter was remitted to the AO for re-examination. Additions related to share premium, excise duty, and unexplained investment were confirmed. The claim for set-off of brought forward losses was disallowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For interest levy, the matter was remitted to the AO for re-examination. Additions related to share premium, excise duty, and unexplained investment were confirmed. The claim for set-off of brought forward losses was disallowed.

The Tribunal held that merely claiming exemption under Section 11 or the principle of mutuality, when the income was fully disclosed, does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable in such cases.

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 Revenue officers.

The Tribunal held that merely claiming exemption under Section 11 or the principle of mutuality, when the income was fully disclosed, does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable in such cases.

The Tribunal held that merely claiming exemption under Section 11 or the principle of mutuality, when the income was fully disclosed, does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable in such cases.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not make any independent investigation to disprove the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the source of the deposit. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was made primarily based on the Revenue's investigation evidence 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 CIT(A) has jurisdiction coterminous with the Assessing Officer and is empowered to enhance assessment. Therefore, the CIT(A) was obligated to call for records and re-appreciate the material before deciding the appeal.

The Tribunal held that adding ₹3 lakhs for construction cost would amount to double addition as the balance was disclosed in the subsequent year. Regarding the ₹2 lakhs from the wife, the Tribunal considered the social practice of saving from household expenses and income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a copy of the investigation report and details of inquiries made. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the matter needed re-examination by the Assessing Officer as a copy of the investigation report was not furnished to the assessee. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the report and other relevant materials before deciding afresh.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a copy of the investigation report and details of inquiries. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after furnishing the relevant material and providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the fair market value of the land must be determined by considering various factors, including location, area, surrounding infrastructure, future development potential, guideline value, and comparative sale instances. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not considered any factors other than the Sub-Registrar's guideline value. It noted that guideline values are merely guides and may not always reflect the true market value, which fluctuates based on multiple factors. The Tribunal observed that the land in question is in the Ambattur Industrial Estate, similar to the property in the Best & Crompton Engineering Limited case. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to adopt the value of ₹50/- per sq.ft. as determined in the Best & Crompton Engineering Limited case. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to adopt ₹50/- per sq.ft. as the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 and recompute the capital gains and the consequential interest under Section 234B.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals is binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.

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 Revenue. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with these appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should have been provided with the investigation report relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Since this was not done, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after furnishing the relevant material to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal could not proceed.

The Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on his own previous year's order for disallowing business expenditure was not justified, especially since the CIT(A) had allowed a similar claim. The Tribunal also noted that the AO needed to establish how the dividend income was exempt. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. Since no distinguishing facts were presented by the Revenue, the CIT(A)'s findings were confirmed.

The Tribunal held that merely claiming exemption under Section 11 or the principle of mutuality, when the income was fully disclosed, does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable in such cases.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 instructs officers to withdraw appeals pending before the ITAT where the tax effect is less than ₹50 lakhs. The Tribunal held that this circular is binding on the Revenue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For interest on non-deduction of tax, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. Additions for share premium and unexplained investment were confirmed, while disallowance of excise duty and professional fees were upheld.

The Tribunal held that merely claiming exemption under Section 11 or the principle of mutuality, when the income was fully disclosed, does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable in such cases.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For interest levy, the matter was remitted to the AO for re-examination. Additions related to share premium, excise duty, and unexplained investment were confirmed. The claim for set-off of brought forward losses was disallowed.

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

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(Appeals) should have examined the exempt income itself, the availability of such income is crucial for deciding disallowance under Section 14A. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

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

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

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

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

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The AO was directed to gather more evidence regarding the assessee's role in the company and the transaction's genuineness, and to provide the assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine relevant parties.