ITAT Chennai Judgments — October 2019

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal before it as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as un-admitted.

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 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 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.

The Tribunal held that the right of appeal is a substantive right and procedural defects should not hinder justice. Since the assessee complied with the electronic filing requirement upon being notified, the appeal relates back to the original manual filing date, and the CIT(A) should have adjudicated on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal before it as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as un-admitted.

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 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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 the subsidy received was to accelerate industrial development and not specifically to meet the cost of any particular asset. Therefore, it should not be reduced from the cost of the capital asset for depreciation purposes.

The Tribunal held that the investigation report and other relevant materials should be furnished to the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission regarding the low tax effect. As per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below ₹50,00,000/- are not to be filed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA, following its own previous decision. The Tribunal also confirmed the disallowance under Section 40A(3) except for a payment below the threshold.

The Tribunal held that the matter needed re-examination by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to furnish the investigation report and other relevant materials to the assessee and decide the issue afresh.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the non-residents were not technical services and therefore not taxable in India. Consequently, there was no obligation to deduct tax under Section 195, and no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the company had not commenced commercial operations as the plant construction was still in progress. Therefore, the transmission charges and preliminary expenses could not be allowed as revenue expenditure or under Section 35D.

The Tribunal held that mere investment and profit from share trading is not illegal. However, if the assessee was part of a cartel to artificially inflate share prices, the exemption would not be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the condition precedent for disallowance under Section 14A and directed the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the issue afresh. For other grounds, the Tribunal followed its own earlier decisions.

The Tribunal noted that the explanation provided by the assessee's father regarding the source of funds was not legally acceptable as he was not an income tax assessee. However, to meet the ends of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the investigation report was not furnished to the assessee and that the Assessing Officer had not established the assessee's involvement in promoting penny stocks or inflating share prices. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that since the cheque was not encashed and the assessee provided a valid explanation, the addition as unexplained cash credit was not warranted. The explanation offered by the assessee was accepted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While upholding the validity of the reopening of assessment, the Tribunal found that the disallowance of the loss claim needed re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the right of appeal is substantive and procedural defects should not hinder justice. Since the assessee complied with electronic filing upon notice and the original manual filing was within limitation, the dismissal in limine was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the non-residents were not technical services and therefore not taxable in India. Consequently, there was no obligation to deduct tax under Section 195, and no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the subsidy received was to accelerate industrial development and not specifically to meet the cost of any particular asset. Therefore, it should not be reduced from the cost of the capital asset for depreciation purposes.

The Tribunal held that the subsidy received was to accelerate industrial development and not specifically to meet the cost of any particular asset. Therefore, it should not be reduced from the cost of the capital asset for depreciation purposes.

The Tribunal held that the right of appeal is substantive and procedural defects should not hinder justice. Since the appeal was filed manually within the limitation and later complied with electronically, it relates back to the original filing date.

The Tribunal held that the non-furnishing of reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee was a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside.

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

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of club expenses. It allowed depreciation at 15% on certain office equipment classified as plant and machinery. The issue of enhanced foreign travel expenses was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

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 condoned the delay in filing one appeal. Regarding deemed dividend, the Tribunal found that the conditions for Section 2(22)(e) were met. For business and sales promotion expenses, 50% was allowed. The discount issue was remanded to the AO for fresh examination. The claim for Section 80G deduction was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that following the CBDT circular and Supreme Court precedent, appeals with a tax effect below the specified limit should be dismissed. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeals must be dismissed as withdrawn in view of the CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd. The circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal. Regarding deemed dividend, the Tribunal found that the conditions for Section 2(22)(e) were met. For business and sales promotion expenses, 50% was allowed. The discount issue was remanded to the AO for fresh examination. The claim for Section 80G deduction was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate 8% profit on the balance unaccounted turnover, confirming the addition. The assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the remaining unaccounted sales.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence for cash withdrawals from firms, amounts from relatives, and family agricultural income, leading to dismissal of those grounds. However, it allowed a partial relief for unexplained jewellery based on CBDT circulars regarding permissible limits for family members.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal. Regarding deemed dividend, the Tribunal found that the conditions for Section 2(22)(e) were met. For business and sales promotion expenses, 50% was allowed. The discount issue was remanded to the AO for fresh examination. The claim for Section 80G deduction was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate 8% profit on the balance unaccounted turnover, confirming the addition. The assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the remaining unaccounted sales.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate 8% profit on the balance unaccounted turnover, confirming the addition. The assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the remaining unaccounted sales.

The Tribunal held that since similar payments were allowed in earlier assessment years by a co-ordinate bench and the High Court had not stayed those orders, the pending appeals before the High Court were not a reason to deviate from the established precedent. Therefore, the disallowances were not justified.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission regarding the low tax effect. As per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below ₹50,00,000/- are not to be filed before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue did not object. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to afford proper opportunities and decide the issue afresh.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly examine the explanations provided. Considering that similar cash deposit sources were accepted in a subsequent assessment year, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contribution to PF and ESI is paid before the due date for filing the return of income, it should be allowed as a deduction. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) allowed the assessee's claim without proper enquiry, showing a lack of application of mind. The subsequent finding of non-compliance with Section 194C(7) further supported this view, making the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of the write-off of capital assets as revenue expenditure. However, it remanded the additional grounds raised by the assessee regarding the treatment of the amount as a capital loss to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contribution to PF and ESI is paid before the due date for filing the return of income, it should be allowed as a deduction. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was set aside.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contribution to PF and ESI is paid before the due date for filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made. This is in line with the Supreme Court and High Court decisions on Section 43B.