ITAT Chennai Judgments — October 2019

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid as the Assessing Officer had not examined the issue of determinate profit shares during the original assessment. It further held that the profit sharing among the AOP members was indeterminate, making Section 167B(1) applicable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving due opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was attracted because the payees received cash, defeating the purpose of the section, even though partners settled the payments. It also held that commission payments were not allowable as the assessee failed to prove the actual services rendered by the commission agents.

The Tribunal restored the issues of allowability of expenses and determination of fair market value as on 01.04.1981 to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, following a co-ordinate bench's order. The issue of Section 54F exemption was also restored due to new evidence.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on TV films was not for the assessee's business and dismissed that ground. However, it directed the deletion of the disallowance under Section 14A, as no exempt income was earned.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid as the Assessing Officer had not examined the issue of determinate profit shares during the original assessment. It further held that the profit sharing among the AOP members was indeterminate, making Section 167B(1) applicable.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid as the Assessing Officer had not examined the issue of determinate profit shares during the original assessment. It further held that the profit sharing among the AOP members was indeterminate, making Section 167B(1) applicable.

The tribunal, following its own precedent for earlier assessment years, decided to remit the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. This includes the cash deposits and other investments like lorries and cars.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid as the Assessing Officer had not examined the issue of determinate profit shares during the original assessment. It further held that the profit sharing among the AOP members was indeterminate, making Section 167B(1) applicable.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit. Therefore, the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed diverted interest-bearing funds to its related party without charging interest. Therefore, the disallowance of finance cost was rightly confirmed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, stating it was due to a misunderstanding of procedural provisions. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for re-examination on merits.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, stating it was due to a misunderstanding of procedural provisions. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for re-examination on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, stating it was due to a misunderstanding of procedural provisions. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for re-examination on merits.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, stating it was due to a misunderstanding of procedural provisions. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for re-examination on merits.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, stating it was due to a misunderstanding of procedural provisions. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for re-examination on merits.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit. Therefore, the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit. Therefore, the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit. Therefore, the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, stating it was due to a misunderstanding of procedural provisions. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for re-examination on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, stating it was due to a misunderstanding of procedural provisions. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for re-examination on merits.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, stating it was due to a misunderstanding of procedural provisions. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for re-examination on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, stating it was due to a misunderstanding of procedural provisions. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for re-examination on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, stating it was due to a misunderstanding of procedural provisions. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for re-examination on merits.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid as the AO had not applied his mind to the issue of the donation in the original assessment. However, it found that the donation was a voluntary payment made as a gesture of goodwill and not part of the compensation for the share purchase agreement.

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.

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

The Tribunal held that the intimation for levy of fees under Section 234E processed under Section 200A was invalid for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the demand notices were quashed.