ITAT Chennai Judgments — January 2020

The Tribunal held that merely because the assessee could not furnish details of all donors, it cannot be concluded that income was concealed or inaccurate particulars were furnished, especially when the donations were disclosed and exemption under Section 11 was claimed. The claim of exemption under Section 11 cannot be a reason for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that merely because the assessee could not furnish details of all donors, it cannot be concluded that income was concealed or inaccurate particulars were furnished, especially when the donations were disclosed and exemption under Section 11 was claimed. The claim of exemption under Section 11 cannot be a reason for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal found that the nexus between the donations and the donors was not adequately examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal found that the nexus between the donations and the donors was not properly examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance cannot be made in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were reversed.

The Tribunal decided various issues, including provisions for standard assets, country risk, leave encashment, and depreciation on UPS, often by following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case. Some issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance cannot be made in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the disallowance was reversed.

The Tribunal found discrepancies in the value of old and new machinery regarding the Section 10A claim and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For the software expenditure, the Tribunal noted the CIT(A) considered additional evidence in violation of rules and remitted the issue back.

The Tribunal found discrepancies in the value of old and new machinery regarding the Section 10A claim and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For the software expenditure, the Tribunal noted the CIT(A) considered additional evidence in violation of rules and remitted the issue back.

The Tribunal held that dividend income from foreign companies, if taxable in India, should not be subject to disallowance under Section 14A. For domestic investments, the issue of strategic investments is settled in favour of the revenue. Regarding the profit incentive, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify the validity of the settlement agreement for the relevant assessment year and the actual payment.

The Tribunal held that the period of ten days granted by the CIT(A) for representation was not reasonable. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the specific issues and case laws raised by the assessee before enhancing the assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found discrepancies in the value of old and new machinery regarding the Section 10A claim and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For the software expenditure, the Tribunal noted the CIT(A) considered additional evidence in violation of rules and remitted the issue back.

The Tribunal held that the DRP exceeded its jurisdiction by making an observation on beneficial ownership when the objection was beyond its scope. Since there was no variation in income, the passing of a draft assessment order was not warranted, and the assessment order was passed beyond the period of limitation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) has a duty to independently re-appreciate material and pass a speaking order, even if the assessee does not appear. Simply reproducing previous orders and dismissing the appeal is not sufficient.

The Tribunal held that since the investigation report was not furnished to the assessee, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the report and other relevant materials before deciding the issue afresh.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT circular, Section 56(2)(viib) is not applicable to recognized start-ups that have filed Form 2. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea, noting that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing an opportunity to explain the discrepancy, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the appeal back for a decision on merits.

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 Revenue. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with these appeals.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,04,37,072/-, holding that the amount written off by M/s. BMSSL in AY 2005-06 constituted income for the assessee in that year. The reopening was also held to be valid as the assessee had not disclosed primary facts.

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 Revenue. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with these appeals.

The Tribunal found confusion regarding the figures for set-off while computing book profit under Section 115JB. Citing a previous decision, the Tribunal held that Section 72 is not applicable and that unabsorbed depreciation or loss from earlier years should be reduced for book profit computation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report and details of enquiries, which is a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the investigation report relied upon by the Assessing Officer was not furnished to the assessee, and the assessee's involvement in penny stock promotion was not established. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's plea regarding no satisfaction recorded under Section 14A lacked merit. However, following its own previous decisions and Supreme Court judgments, it decided on the merits of disallowances related to Section 14A, stale drafts, ex-gratia payments, and interest on NPAs.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's plea regarding no satisfaction recorded under Section 14A lacked merit. However, following its own previous decisions and Supreme Court judgments, it decided on the merits of disallowances related to Section 14A, stale drafts, ex-gratia payments, and interest on NPAs.

The CIT(A) has the power to dispose of appeals on merit, even in the absence of the assessee, by calling for records and passing a speaking order. Dismissing an appeal solely for non-appearance or non-prosecution is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction or belief that income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. It was considered a case of mere change of opinion based on existing material.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the purpose of the payment and prove that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the business. The CIT(A)'s order was reversed, and the Assessing Officer's disallowance was restored.

The Tribunal held that for one credit, it represented an opening balance, and addition under Section 68 is not permissible in the current year. For the remaining credits, the assessee had discharged the onus to the extent possible by providing details and filing FIRs, and the Assessing Officer should have used his statutory powers to trace the creditors.

The Tribunal held that ESOP expenses are allowable as revenue expenditure, relying on High Court decisions. Depreciation on technical know-how was also allowed as it was considered a business or commercial right eligible for depreciation.

The Tribunal held that ESOP expenses are allowable as revenue expenditure, following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and Delhi High Court. Depreciation on technical know-how was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that ESOP expenses are allowable as revenue expenditure, following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and Delhi High Court. Depreciation on technical know-how was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that ESOP expenses are allowable as revenue expenditure, following the High Court's decision in PVP Ventures. It also allowed depreciation on technical know-how, considering it as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation.

The Tribunal held that ESOP expenses are allowable as revenue expenditure, relying on High Court decisions. It also allowed depreciation on technical know-how, considering it as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation.

The Tribunal held that ESOP expenses are allowable as revenue expenditure, following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and Delhi High Court. It also allowed depreciation on technical know-how as an intangible asset.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as it did not survive.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claims. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's Disaster Relief Fund.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay, considering the disruption caused by the search and the fact that no penalty was levied for the preceding year's delay. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice as it was unclear if proper hearing notices were served and the assessee was not show-caused. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice as it was unclear if proper hearing notices were served and the assessee was not show-caused. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice as it was unclear if proper hearing notices were served and the assessee was not show-caused. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice as it was unclear if proper hearing notices were served and the assessee was not show-caused. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice as it was unclear if proper hearing notices were served and the assessee was not show-caused. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice as it was unclear if proper hearing notices were served and the assessee was not show-caused. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice as it was unclear if proper hearing notices were served and the assessee was not show-caused. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration after affording due opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice as it was unclear if proper hearing notices were served and the assessee was not show-caused. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice as it was unclear if proper hearing notices were served and the assessee was not show-caused. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.