ITAT Chennai Judgments — November 2019

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 found that the assessee had not placed sufficient material and evidence before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

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 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.

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 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 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 found that the guideline value for Jayanth colony, where the property was located, was Rs. 9,000/- per sq. feet. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's action of adopting a higher rate for a different area was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the replacement of the windmill constituted capital expenditure as it was an independent new machine, and the ratio of Saravana Spinning Mills was not applicable. It also held that Section 14A was triggered upon earning exempt income, and the disallowance was correctly computed.

The Tribunal 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 set aside the matters concerning the waiver of milk creditors and the allowability of depreciation and interest on loans for the Karur Chilling Plant back to the AO for fresh assessment. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding the Karur Chilling Plant.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below ₹50 lakhs, is binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal could not proceed.

The Tribunal found that crucial details regarding the lease agreement, the relationship between the parties, and the rationale for the high interest cost versus low income were not examined. Therefore, the issue was remitted back for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that Crawler Cranes are entitled to depreciation at 30%, following its own previous decisions. For the Section 40A(3) issue, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that once the quantum additions are deleted by the ITAT and upheld by the High Court, the penalty levied on those additions under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty was affirmed.

The Tribunal condoned the 14-day delay in manual filing and considered the subsequent electronic delay as a venial breach. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal as a subsequent order had been passed by the AO pursuant to directions from the CIT(A), making the current appeal infructuous. The Revenue did not object.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting, the interest accrued on the loan is taxable in the year of accrual, irrespective of the repayment terms or subsequent settlement between the parties.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.

The Tribunal held that since the rate of tax was accepted in the final assessment order, the proceedings under Section 154 became infructuous. Consequently, the appeal filed before the Tribunal also became infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.

The Tribunal held that the issues regarding bad and doubtful debts and reversal of generation tax required further factual verification and remitted them back to the AO. For advances written off, the Tribunal also remitted the matter to the AO for verification of business purpose and taxability in earlier years. The Section 14A disallowance was remitted for recomputation based on investments yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.

The Tribunal held that the new unit did not qualify for Section 80IB deduction as it was not established to be a separate and distinct undertaking producing entirely different products. However, payments made to foreign entities for product certification were allowed as they were professional services not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the new unit did not qualify for Section 80IB deduction as it was not established to be a separate and distinct undertaking producing entirely different products. However, payments made to foreign entities for product certification were allowed as they were professional services not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was made primarily on the basis of evidence collected by the Revenue without giving the assessee a fair opportunity to prove genuineness. The matter was remitted back to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should only be computed on investments that yielded exempt income during the year. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added to book profit under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that the new unit did not qualify for Section 80IB deduction as it was not established to be a separate and distinct undertaking producing entirely different products. However, payments made to foreign entities for product certification were allowed as they were professional services not taxable in India.