ITAT Chennai Judgments — December 2019

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's reasons to be reasonable and sufficient. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing an effective opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The AO was directed to consider the role of the assessee in promoting the company and their relationship with other promoters, and to provide the assessee with a copy of any investigation reports.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to explain the transactions and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate turnover at Rs. 75,000/- per month and profit at 10%, following its own orders for earlier assessment years. For AY 2015-16, the issue was remitted back to the AO on similar lines.

The Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before resorting to Section 14A and Rule 8D. Since no such satisfaction was recorded, the disallowance made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal, considering previous decisions in the assessee's own case, found that the issue of proportionate interest on interest-free advances to group concerns required fresh adjudication. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo examination.

The Tribunal held that since the remittances were made before the due date for filing the income tax return, the disallowance was incorrect. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision which allowed such deductions.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B is not leviable when tax is deductible at source. It also directed the AO to grant due TDS credit and delete the levy of surcharge and cess when tax treaties are more beneficial.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine if the EPF/ESI contributions were made within the due date of filing the return. If so, they should be allowed as a deduction.

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 transaction of selling the rights in the property constituted a transfer of a capital asset, and the gains arising were assessable as long-term capital gains. The assessee was therefore entitled to the exemption under Section 54.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, stating it was well-reasoned and considered the material on record. The assessee failed to provide substantiation for the cash deposits and expenditures.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT circular which stated that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/- should not be filed or pressed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of notional interest on advances to subsidiaries was covered by its own previous decisions in favour of the assessee. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 14A was also decided in favour of the assessee, following prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the issue of notional interest on advances to subsidiaries was covered by its own previous decisions in favour of the assessee. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 14A was also decided in favour of the assessee, following prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the issue of notional interest on advances to subsidiaries was covered by its own previous decisions in favour of the assessee. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 14A was also decided in favour of the assessee, following prior rulings.

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the lower authorities, relying on a High Court decision in the assessee's own case for a similar issue. The assessee failed to identify investments not yielding exempt income, and the disallowed expenditure was less than the exempt income earned.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a punitive cost of Rs. 50,000/-. If the cost is not paid, the original assessment and CIT(A) order would stand confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the matter needed re-examination by the Assessing Officer, especially since the investigation report was not furnished to the assessee. The Tribunal followed a previous identical order where the matter was remitted back.

The Tribunal upheld the revisionary order passed by the CIT. It found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not conducted proper inquiries on several issues, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B is not leviable when tax is deductible at source. It also directed the AO to grant due TDS credit and delete the levy of surcharge and cess when tax treaties are more beneficial.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B is not leviable when tax is deductible at source. It also directed the AO to grant due TDS credit and delete the levy of surcharge and cess when tax treaties are more beneficial.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B is not leviable when tax is deductible at source. It also directed the AO to grant due TDS credit and delete the levy of surcharge and cess when tax treaties are more beneficial.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) had granted relief on some expenses but confirmed others.

The Tribunal held that the issue of notional interest on advances to subsidiaries was covered by its own previous decisions in favour of the assessee. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 14A was also decided in favour of the assessee, following prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the issue of notional interest on advances to subsidiaries was covered by its own previous decisions in favour of the assessee. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 14A was also decided in favour of the assessee, following prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without a proper adjudication on merits, especially concerning the eligibility for Section 10AA deduction and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, the notice under Section 153A was unsustainable in the absence of incriminating material for a concluded assessment year. For AY 2015-16, the notice under Section 143(2) was barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, the notice under Section 153A was unsustainable in the absence of incriminating material for a concluded assessment year. For AY 2015-16, the notice under Section 143(2) was barred by limitation.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The AO is to verify if any expenditure was claimed for earning interest income and if it's allowable under 'income from other sources'.

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. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. The AO's failure to consider crucial information, despite the assessment being under limited scrutiny, rendered the order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the appeal relates back to the date of manual filing and the procedural defect was curable. The CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal without considering its merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and the assessment was based on investigation reports not shared with the assessee. Therefore, the issue of genuineness requires re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and the assessment was based on investigation reports not shared with the assessee. Therefore, the issue of genuineness requires re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the e-filing of the appeal relates back to the original manual filing date, and therefore, there was no delay. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd., the Tribunal held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that non-filing of the tax audited report before the due date was a technical breach and the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay. The penalty was deleted as the audited report was available with the Assessing Officer when the assessment was completed.

The Tribunal held that non-filing of the tax audited report before the due date was a technical breach and the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay. The penalty was deleted as the audited report was available with the Assessing Officer when the assessment was completed.

The Tribunal held that non-filing of the tax audited report before the due date was a technical breach and the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay. The penalty was deleted as the audited report was available with the Assessing Officer when the assessment was completed.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had the power to reject additional evidence, substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. Therefore, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that non-filing of the tax audited report before the due date was a technical breach and the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay. The penalty was deleted as the audited report was available with the Assessing Officer when the assessment was completed.