ITAT Chennai Judgments — October 2019

The Tribunal held that while the entire receipt including TDS must be assessed in the respective year, the AO should not demand tax from the assessee to the extent TDS has been deducted and not paid by the deductor, as per Section 205. The claim for carrying forward unabsorbed depreciation was allowed to the extent of business income.

The Tribunal held that while the entire receipt including TDS must be assessed in the respective year, the AO should not demand tax from the assessee to the extent TDS has been deducted and not paid by the deductor, as per Section 205. The claim for carrying forward unabsorbed depreciation was allowed to the extent of business income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the genuineness of the credits. However, it directed the AO to recompute the assessable credits, considering any opening balances in the creditors' accounts.

The ITAT, in the interest of justice, remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to provide all supporting material within 30 days.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) decided the appeal without affording the assessee an effective opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that payments to mutual fund distributors for commission/brokerage did not fall under 'professional' or 'technical services' as defined in Section 194J, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground. For other issues, the appeals were partly allowed or dismissed based on specific grounds and CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for filing a revised return was to 'buy peace' and avoid litigation, but the significant increase in admitted income defied this explanation. The AO had clearly indicated the charge for penalty, making the assessee's plea of lack of specific charge untenable.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision that relief under Section 80IA should be deducted from business profits before computing Section 80HHC relief. It also allowed the deduction for profit on DEPB licenses, noting a previous favorable order for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that payments to mutual fund distributors for commission/brokerage did not fall under 'professional' or 'technical services' as defined in Section 194J, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground. For other issues, the appeals were partly allowed or dismissed based on specific grounds and CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that payments to mutual fund distributors for commission/brokerage did not fall under 'professional' or 'technical services' as defined in Section 194J, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground. For other issues, the appeals were partly allowed or dismissed based on specific grounds and CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that payments to mutual fund distributors for commission/brokerage did not fall under 'professional' or 'technical services' as defined in Section 194J, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground. For other issues, the appeals were partly allowed or dismissed based on specific grounds and CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that payments to mutual fund distributors for commission/brokerage did not fall under 'professional' or 'technical services' as defined in Section 194J, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground. For other issues, the appeals were partly allowed or dismissed based on specific grounds and CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that payments to mutual fund distributors for commission/brokerage did not fall under 'professional' or 'technical services' as defined in Section 194J, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground. For other issues, the appeals were partly allowed or dismissed based on specific grounds and CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that payments to mutual fund distributors for commission/brokerage did not fall under 'professional' or 'technical services' as defined in Section 194J, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground. For other issues, the appeals were partly allowed or dismissed based on specific grounds and CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing the assessee 90 days to furnish confirmation letters or assessment particulars from the loan creditors.

The Tribunal held that payments to mutual fund distributors for commission/brokerage did not fall under 'professional' or 'technical services' as defined in Section 194J, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground. For other issues, the appeals were partly allowed or dismissed based on specific grounds and CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision that relief under Section 80IA should be deducted from business profits before computing Section 80HHC relief. It also allowed the deduction for profit on DEPB licenses, noting a previous favorable order for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer incorrectly applied Section 80-IA(10) to Section 80-IB(10) and found no material to suggest the business was arranged to generate excessive profit. The market value of land is not fixed and fluctuates.

The Tribunal held that the matter needed re-examination by the Assessing Officer as the investigation report was not furnished to the assessee. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer incorrectly applied Section 80-IA(10) to Section 80-IB(10) and found no material to suggest the business was arranged to generate excessive profit. The market value of land is not fixed and fluctuates.

The Tribunal held that the matter needed re-examination by the Assessing Officer as the investigation report was not furnished to the assessee. The Assessing Officer was directed to reconsider the issue after providing the relevant material and giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the matter needed re-examination by the Assessing Officer as the investigation report was not furnished to the assessee. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) has the power to re-examine the matter on merit, even if the assessee does not appear. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without proper examination is not permissible.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the Revenue's appeal. The core issue revolves around the AO's rejection of the assessee's adopted fair market value for inherited property, which was used to compute capital gains.

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 found that the lower authorities should have examined the Profit & Loss account submitted by the assessee. Since they failed to do so, their orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that any amount collected over and above the disclosed sale consideration must be treated as sale consideration and thus income. The claim of payment for removing obstructions from VIPs was considered an illegal payment and not allowable as expenditure.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as relevant to the appeal. However, since the evidence required examination, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The CIT(A) admitted new material without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that for exemption under Section 10(4)(ii), the assessee must be a 'person resident outside India' under FEMA. Since the assessee stayed in India for a significant period for employment purposes, their residential status under FEMA was 'person resident in India', making them ineligible for the exemption.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to set aside matters to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the issue of set off of losses and unabsorbed depreciation was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. Similarly, the issue of proportionate interest disallowance was also remitted back.

The Tribunal decided to adopt the difference in construction cost of ₹8 lakhs, as confirmed by the High Court for AY 1998-99, and distribute it equally between AY 1997-98 and 1998-99, to bring the long-pending litigation to an end.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The merits of the issue were not commented upon.

The Tribunal held that an inadvertent omission to disclose income subjected to TDS does not constitute concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in such cases.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 as the AO's estimation of turnover lacked a reasonable nexus and basis. The assessment order was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A, and the date of payment for employee's contribution was not on record. Therefore, both issues required re-examination by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal decided to adopt the difference in construction cost of ₹8 lakhs, as confirmed by the High Court for AY 1998-99, and distribute it equally between AY 1997-98 and 1998-99, to bring the long-pending litigation to an end.