ITAT Chennai Judgments — December 2019

The Tribunal held that Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, as amended, is not applicable to transactions that occurred before its effective date of October 1, 2009. The Revenue is bound by the CBDT circular clarifying this position.

The tribunal held that non-compete fees paid by the assessee should be treated as deferred revenue expenditure, allowing a deduction over 10 years. It also directed the Assessing Officer to grant additional depreciation on plant and machinery installed in the second half of the financial year.

The tribunal held that non-compete fees paid by the assessee should be treated as deferred revenue expenditure, allowing a deduction over 10 years. It also directed the Assessing Officer to grant additional depreciation on plant and machinery installed in the second half of the financial year.

The tribunal held that non-compete fees paid by the assessee should be treated as deferred revenue expenditure, allowing a deduction over 10 years. It also directed the Assessing Officer to grant additional depreciation on plant and machinery installed in the second half of the financial year.

The tribunal held that non-compete fees paid by the assessee should be treated as deferred revenue expenditure, allowing a deduction over 10 years. It also directed the Assessing Officer to grant additional depreciation on plant and machinery installed in the second half of the financial year.

The tribunal held that non-compete fees paid by the assessee should be treated as deferred revenue expenditure, allowing a deduction over 10 years. It also directed the Assessing Officer to grant additional depreciation on plant and machinery installed in the second half of the financial year.

The tribunal held that non-compete fees paid by the assessee should be treated as deferred revenue expenditure, allowing a deduction over 10 years. It also directed the Assessing Officer to grant additional depreciation on plant and machinery installed in the second half of the financial year.

The tribunal held that non-compete fees paid by the assessee should be treated as deferred revenue expenditure, allowing a deduction over 10 years. It also directed the Assessing Officer to grant additional depreciation on plant and machinery installed in the second half of the financial year.

The Tribunal held that cash payments made to lorry drivers for freight charges were due to commercial expediency and business necessity. The disallowance made under Section 40A(3) was set aside.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessees an adequate opportunity to substantiate their claims and to consider relevant case law.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessees an adequate opportunity to substantiate their claims and to consider relevant case law.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessees an adequate opportunity to substantiate their claims and to consider relevant case law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s deletion of Section 14A disallowance as there was no exempt income. It also allowed the bad debt write-off. However, it confirmed the disallowance of leave encashment as it was not paid and the relevant High Court judgment was stayed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) citing sufficient cause, as the misplacement of papers was beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal also decided that the appeals should be heard on merit, as technicalities should not prevent consideration of the case.

The tribunal held that non-compete fees paid by the assessee should be treated as deferred revenue expenditure, allowing a deduction over 10 years. It also directed the Assessing Officer to grant additional depreciation on plant and machinery installed in the second half of the financial year.

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

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce required evidence before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination, directing the assessee to produce Shri. D. Manoharan with relevant material.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the issue of cost of construction back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. This was based on the assessee's claim that bills and vouchers for payments made between 2008 and 2010 were available.

The Tribunal held that while income offered under Section 44AE cannot be further taxed, the unexplained deposits need to be examined for their nexus with business receipts. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, finding that the assessee was willing to provide explanations and evidence, remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The assessee was directed to furnish all supporting materials.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the Section 35(2AB) claim was justified due to the assessee's failure to comply with the prescribed procedures and timelines. However, the alternate claim for R&D expenses under Section 37 was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to intimate the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee. The AO was directed to follow specific guidelines for reassessment, including providing the assessee an opportunity to prove the genuineness of transactions and cross-examine any adverse evidence.

The Tribunal held that the amount received through a Will is specifically exempted under Clause (c) of the Fourth Proviso to Section 56(2)(vii). Therefore, the legacy received by the assessee cannot be taxed as income from other sources.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the return form as it existed at that time, and the due date for filing the return should have been considered as September 30th due to the audit under Section 80IA(7). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the assessees were not given a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions, as the assessment was primarily based on information from the Directorate of Investigation. The issue of genuineness requires re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessees were not given a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions, as the assessment was primarily based on information from the Directorate of Investigation. The issue of genuineness requires re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding the monetary limit for appeals is binding on the Revenue's officers. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT could not exercise revision powers to look into issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. The Assessing Officer is barred from examining matters outside the specific purpose for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny.

The tribunal held that while the CIT(A) could dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, the order must still be on merits and consider the material on record. The CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and lacked reference to any material.

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

The Tribunal found that the classification of lands as wet and dry by the Revenue Department was not properly examined. It also noted that the sale of lands as plots was not investigated. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's petition to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the enhancements made by the CIT(A) were unsustainable as principles of natural justice were violated due to the lack of a specific enhancement notice to the assessee. Consequently, the enhancements were deleted.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee to provide evidence that recipients offered the interest income to tax, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee to provide evidence that recipients offered the interest income to tax, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents.

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