ITAT Chennai Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal held that the investigation report relied upon by the Assessing Officer was not furnished to the assessee. Citing a previous similar case, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed.

The Tribunal held that after the settlement deed, the husband had no right or title over the property. The payment of ₹1 Crore was considered an application of income, not a necessary expense for the sale.

The Tribunal, following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The issues raised were left open for future examination if circumstances permit.

The Tribunal held that the excess claim was due to an inadvertent mistake and the assessee's explanation could not be disbelieved. The Supreme Court's decision in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. was applicable, and the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) has a responsibility to examine the appeal on merits even if the assessee does not appear. Dismissing the appeal solely on non-appearance is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not seek registration with retrospective effect in their application, nor did they press for condonation of delay. Therefore, the relief sought by the assessee could not be granted.

The Tribunal held that the fair market value of a property must be determined considering various factors including location, size, willingness of parties, market demand, surrounding infrastructure, educational institutions, hospitals, and future development potential. Guideline values and comparable instances in the locality are also crucial. The Tribunal found that these factors were not adequately considered by either the authorities below or the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of both the authorities and remitted the issue of determining the fair market value as on April 1, 1981, back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider all relevant factors and was permitted to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer if deemed necessary. The assessee was also given the option to furnish a valuation report from a registered valuer.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on goodwill and non-compete agreements as they are intangible assets. The book value of tangible assets acquired was considered fair market value, and the excess payment was attributed to these intangibles.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after furnishing the relevant material.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report and details of inquiries, which is a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after furnishing the relevant material.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on goodwill and non-compete agreements as they are intangible assets. The book value of tangible assets acquired was considered fair market value, and the excess payment was attributed to these intangibles.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals), as the first appellate authority, is expected to re-appreciate the material on record and pass a speaking order. Since this was not done, the matter was remitted back.

The Tribunal, considering CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The issues raised were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal was premature without the DVO's report. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after receipt of the valuation report.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal dismissed all six appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 50,00,000/-.

The Tribunal dismissed all six appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 50,00,000/-.

The Tribunal dismissed all six appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 50,00,000/-.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10, the orders were barred by limitation and thus set aside. For assessment year 2010-11, the assessee was liable to deduct tax, but interest under Section 201(1A) was to be levied only on the shortfall after considering advance tax paid by hospitals.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10, the orders were barred by limitation and thus set aside. For assessment year 2010-11, the assessee was liable to deduct tax, but interest under Section 201(1A) was to be levied only on the shortfall after considering advance tax paid by hospitals.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10, the orders were barred by limitation and thus set aside. For assessment year 2010-11, the assessee was liable to deduct tax, but interest under Section 201(1A) was to be levied only on the shortfall after considering advance tax paid by hospitals.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10, the orders were barred by limitation and thus set aside. For assessment year 2010-11, the assessee was liable to deduct tax, but interest under Section 201(1A) was to be levied only on the shortfall after considering advance tax paid by hospitals.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10, the orders were barred by limitation and thus set aside. For assessment year 2010-11, the assessee was liable to deduct tax, but interest under Section 201(1A) was to be levied only on the shortfall after considering advance tax paid by hospitals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the ground regarding the Assessing Officer's lack of satisfaction for invoking Section 14A. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed all six appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 50,00,000/-.

The Tribunal dismissed all six appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 50,00,000/-.

The Tribunal dismissed all six appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 50,00,000/-.