ITAT Chennai Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the pending writ petition. This was done in the interest of natural justice as the High Court's decision would directly impact the exemption.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to ₹50 lakhs, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the pending writ petition. This was done in the interest of natural justice as the High Court's decision would directly impact the exemption.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the pending writ petition. This was done in the interest of natural justice as the High Court's decision would directly impact the exemption.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit. Consequently, the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission and noted that the Revenue's appeal was not admissible due to the low tax effect. The Revenue's counsel conceded to this point.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that even if income is assessed under 'income from other sources', expenses incurred for earning such income are allowable deductions, which the Assessing Officer failed to consider.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the pending writ petition. This was done in the interest of natural justice as the High Court's decision would directly impact the exemption.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the pending writ petition. This was done in the interest of natural justice as the High Court's decision would directly impact the exemption.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied for a minor breach was unwarranted, considering the unavoidable circumstances. The audit was concluded on time, and the accounts were not questioned. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal found that while Section 14A was correctly invoked, the Assessing Officer erred in quantifying the average investment. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to recalculate the average investment and disallow 0.5% of the correct average.

The Tribunal found that crucial documents like the date of purchase of the new property and details of construction were missing. It also noted that a portion of the constructed building was commercial, making it difficult to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 54F.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The AO was directed to consider the new evidence and pass an order after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the interest income on deposits made from borrowings for setting up the business is taxable under Section 56. However, the interest paid on such borrowings should be allowed as a deduction from the interest income.

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80IB(11C) to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in both assessment years. The assessee is directed to provide all supporting materials to the Assessing Officer.

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 pending appeals below this limit, is binding on the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee disclosed more turnover than reflected in Form 26AS and tax was deducted by both entities, there was no concealment of income. An omission to disclose receipt from one entity, when tax was deducted, cannot be considered concealment as per Apex Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer rightly invoked Section 50C of the Income Tax Act and adopted the guideline value as the sale consideration for the land. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The ITAT noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) does not have the power to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution. The CIT(Appeals) is obligated to decide appeals on merits, even if the assessee fails to appear, by examining the records.

The Tribunal found that the facts regarding consignment sales were not examined by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. The penalty imposed was deleted due to an inadvertent mistake by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the facts regarding TDS deduction and payment, and the filing of Form 10CCB for Section 80-IB deduction, needed to be verified.

The Tribunal held that Section 54 of the Income Tax Act does not mandate that the sale consideration from the original asset must be directly utilized for the purchase of the new asset. The key condition is the purchase of a new residential property within the specified time frame.

The Tribunal held that disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act cannot be added back while computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) also found no taxable income earned by the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80IB(11C) to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in both assessment years. The assessee is directed to provide all supporting materials to the Assessing Officer.

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 appeals and decide them on merits.

The Tribunal restored the issues related to Section 10B exemption, suppression of turnover, and Section 14A disallowance to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, pending the High Court's decision on the condonation of delay. The exclusion of freight and insurance from turnover for Section 10B computation was upheld in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issues related to Section 10B exemption, suppression of turnover, and Section 14A disallowance to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, pending the High Court's decision on the condonation of delay. The exclusion of freight and insurance from turnover for Section 10B computation was upheld in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to demonstrate that the loan was for business purposes governed by commercial expediency. Therefore, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were applicable.

The Tribunal restored the issues related to Section 10B exemption, suppression of turnover, and Section 14A disallowance to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, pending the High Court's decision on the condonation of delay. The exclusion of freight and insurance from turnover for Section 10B computation was upheld in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the addition for excess stock. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal against the reduced addition.

The Tribunal held that since crucial grounds were not adjudicated by the CIT(A), the common order was liable to be set aside. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on all grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits from her parents, supported by confirmation letters, was not to be disbelieved. The Tribunal considered the amount involved and found no reason to deem the explanation unreasonable.

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 appeals and decide them 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 appeals and decide them 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 appeals and decide them on merits.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee's own funds (share capital and reserves) exceed the advances made to the sister concern, no disallowance of interest is warranted. It is presumed that own funds were utilized for such advances.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not properly appreciate the assessee's explanations and the material on record. Therefore, the case was sent back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

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 appeals and decide them 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 appeals and decide them 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 appeals and decide them 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 appeals and decide them 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 appeals and decide them 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 appeals and decide them 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 appeals and decide them 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 appeals and decide them 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 appeals and decide them 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 appeals and decide them on merits.