ITAT Chennai Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment was valid as there was no application of mind in the original assessment regarding Section 14A. However, it was held that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted as the only expenditure available for disallowance was Rs. 110/- (bank charges), and the proviso to Rule 8D limits disallowance to claimed expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the books and estimating the profit. It further found that 10% gross profit is reasonable for the jewellery business and that depreciation cannot be claimed at this stage as it was not claimed before the lower authorities.

The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer's order was cryptic and lacked application of mind, thus justifying the PCIT's invocation of Section 263. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

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 for assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10, the orders were beyond the period of 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 90% advance tax paid by hospitals.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10, the orders were beyond the period of 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 90% 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 found that the Assessing Officer did not properly consider the assessee's objections regarding built-up area and that the date of construction agreements needed re-verification in light of Supreme Court rulings on unregistered agreements. Therefore, both issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim and directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income, following the Delhi High Court's decision in M/s. Joint Investments (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT.

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 the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and the assessment was primarily based on revenue investigations. Therefore, the issue of genuineness requires re-adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not properly consider the assessee's objections regarding built-up area and that the date of construction agreements needed re-verification in light of Supreme Court rulings on unregistered agreements. Therefore, both issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not properly consider the assessee's objections regarding built-up area and that the date of construction agreements needed re-verification in light of Supreme Court rulings on unregistered agreements. Therefore, both issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the facts and circumstances were not properly examined by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not examined various aspects of the taxation properly. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination of the capital gains assessment based on the year of registration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits as required by law. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This decision was based on a coordinate bench's order in the assessee's mother's case, which also directed a fresh assessment.

The tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates dismissal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lacs. The tribunal clarified that this dismissal was not on merits.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee must produce the insurance policies to prove they are group policies and not Keyman policies.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly followed the decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal in the assessee's own cases. Therefore, no interference was necessary with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that capital gains from immovable property should be assessed in the year of registration of the property, following the Supreme Court's decision. The claim for Section 54F deduction was also to be considered in the correct year.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly followed the decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal in the assessee's own cases. Therefore, no interference was necessary with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly followed the decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal in the assessee's own cases. Therefore, no interference was necessary with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly followed the decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal in the assessee's own cases. Therefore, no interference was necessary with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly followed the decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal in the assessee's own cases. Therefore, no interference was necessary with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly followed the decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal in the assessee's own cases. Therefore, no interference was necessary with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had followed the jurisdictional discipline by relying on previous decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own cases. Therefore, no interference was necessary.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for appeals to ₹50 lakhs is binding on the revenue officers. Therefore, the appeals with a tax effect below this limit should be withdrawn or dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for appeals to ₹50 lakhs is binding on the revenue officers. Therefore, the appeals with a tax effect below this limit should be withdrawn or dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to ₹50 lakhs and instructed withdrawal of appeals below this limit, is binding on the Department's officers. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.

The Tribunal held that since the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA(4) for the assessee's Container Freight Station had been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the assessee's own case, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest. Therefore, the invocation of Section 263 was unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the impugned material properly. Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and decision.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case. The assessee's mother's case was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that capital gains from immovable property should be assessed in the year of registration of the property, following the Supreme Court's decision. The claim for Section 54F deduction was also to be considered in the correct year.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for appeals to ₹50 lakhs is binding on the revenue officers. Therefore, the appeals with a tax effect below this limit should be withdrawn or dismissed.

The Tribunal found that a specific ground raised before the CIT(A) regarding the overlap of additions was not adjudicated. Therefore, the quantum addition appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds related to the disallowance of expenses for lorry operators and the addition for royalty received in advance. However, issues concerning short-term capital gains, payments to Kalaivani Borewells, and certain other disallowances were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds related to disallowance of expenses on lorry operators and addition for royalty received in advance. However, issues concerning short-term capital gains, payments to Kalaivani Borewells, and certain lorry operator payments were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of miscellaneous expenses as no evidence was produced. It also confirmed the disallowance of professional charges and commission payments for non-deduction of TDS, following Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal found that a specific ground raised before the CIT(A) regarding the overlap of additions was not adjudicated. Therefore, the quantum addition appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly followed the decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal in the assessee's own cases. Therefore, no interference was necessary with the CIT(A)'s order.

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 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 reopening of assessment beyond four years was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to record any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross objections due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Tribunal clarified that this decision was not on merits and granted liberty to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application if exceptions in the circular applied.