ITAT Chennai Judgments — October 2019

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 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 dismissed both appeals in limine due to the failure to cure the defects. This decision was based on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court.

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 AO had not properly examined the issue of short relief and directed the AO to re-examine it. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding expenses paid during the year and not outstanding, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The issue of service tax was dismissed as it was raised for the first time.

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 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 held that this circular is binding on the Department.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under limbs (i) and (ii) of Rule 8D could be made as the assessee had sufficient interest-free own funds for investments. The disallowance under limb (iii) was directed to be restricted to the exempt income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in e-filing, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's relocation. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

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

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering it was due to a misunderstanding of procedural provisions. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision 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 merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering it 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 merit.

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 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 noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below ₹50 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.

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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits and decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the trust deed indicated it was a social organization for the Saurashtra community, and its activity of maintaining a marriage hall on lease at market rates fell under Section 13(1)(b) of the IT Act, as it benefited a particular community.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not furnished the basic requirements like the nature and relevancy of the expenditure. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below ₹50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) correctly reasoned that the grant becomes receivable only when sanctioned by the government, and treating the social cost as notional income and writing it off as bad debts would serve no useful purpose.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below ₹50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below ₹50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that following the CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., the appeals filed by the Revenue were non-maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that following the CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., the appeals filed by the Revenue were non-maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal restored the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) correctly reasoned that the grant becomes receivable only when sanctioned by the government, and treating the social cost as notional income and writing it off as bad debts would serve no useful purpose.

The ITAT 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.

The Tribunal held that following the CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., the appeals filed by the Revenue were non-maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that all appeals filed by the Revenue 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.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not derive any exempt income during the relevant assessment year, the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was not warranted. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that, in view of the CBDT circular and the low tax effect, the appeals filed by the Revenue were non-maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that, in view of the CBDT circular and the low tax effect, the appeals filed by the Revenue were non-maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that, in view of the CBDT circular and the low tax effect, the appeals filed by the Revenue were non-maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that, in view of the CBDT circular and the low tax effect, the appeals filed by the Revenue were non-maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in all the appeals filed by the Revenue was less than the monetary limit of ₹50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Revenue conceded this point.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below ₹50 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal found that neither the assessee nor the Assessing Officer followed the prescribed methods for computing the Fair Market Value (FMV) of shares under Rule 11UA. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for recomputation.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted liberty to produce all relevant documents and evidence to substantiate her claim.

The Tribunal held that, in view of the CBDT circular and the low tax effect, the appeals filed by the Revenue were non-maintainable. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in all the appeals filed by the Revenue was less than the monetary limit of ₹50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Revenue conceded this point.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order in one appeal, finding that the AO had not conducted necessary inquiries on several issues. In the second appeal, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission and remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.