ITAT Chennai Judgments — February 2020

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

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's primary contention was that the sale agreement dated 21.03.2005 was incomplete as registration was not done within 12 months. The Revenue also argued that the lands transferred by the sale deed dated 09.12.2010 were not included in the 3.935 acres covered by the sale agreement. The assessee argued that the transfer was complete in AY 2005-06 under Section 2(47)(v) read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, and taxing capital gains again in AY 2011-12 would be double taxation. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's claim that the lands registered on 09.12.2010 were part of the 3.935 acres required factual verification, specifically matching survey numbers. Due to this need for factual verification, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO for adjudication, directing the Revenue to ensure no double addition and the assessee to adduce necessary evidence. The grounds raised by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted a reconciliation statement showing discrepancies with some parties. In the interest of justice, the issue was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication after cross-verification.

The Tribunal held that salary earned by an Australian resident for services rendered in Australia is taxable only in Australia as per Article 15 of the India-Australia DTAA. The fact that the salary was received in India does not make it taxable in India if the employment was exercised outside India.

The Tribunal held that since the services were rendered outside India and the agents had no place of business or business connection in India, the commission paid was not chargeable to tax in India. Therefore, no TDS was required, and the disallowance was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which instructs to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal could not proceed.

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 without allowing the assessee to rebut. Therefore, the issue of genuineness of the transactions requires re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's observations regarding the computation of book profits under Section 115JB were set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification. However, the CIT's direction regarding the adjustment of business loss or unabsorbed depreciation was upheld.

The tribunal allowed deduction for employee's PF/ESI contributions remitted before the return filing date, following jurisdictional High Court precedent. It also allowed the Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance for statistical purposes, directing verification of tax payment by the recipient. The Section 14A disallowance was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was barred by limitation as it was passed after the expiry of the prescribed period under the pre-amended provisions of Section 201(3)(ii).

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record the mandatory satisfaction required under Section 14A(2) before applying Rule 8D, thus vitiating the disallowance. It also held that no addition could be made on a notional basis for interest income without statutory support, given the assessee had sufficient own funds.

The Tribunal held that the assignment of debts constituted a valid transfer of a capital asset. The CIT(A) was justified in allowing the capital loss claimed by the assessee on the sale of these debts.

The Tribunal held that the AO's allowance of depreciation on the intangible asset was a possible view, and the classification of land as agricultural was supported by evidence. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequate funds, made payments through banking channels, disclosed the assets in wealth tax returns, and even produced the jewelry. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unwarranted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and furnish necessary explanations.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and furnish necessary explanations.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and furnish necessary explanations.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed them to adjudicate the issues on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed them to adjudicate the issues on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) as the assessee had sufficient own interest-free funds. However, for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication as the assessee did not discharge its primary onus.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) cannot be made when the assessee has not earned any exempt income. The CBDT circular cannot override the judgments of the High Court and Supreme Court.

The Tribunal implicitly upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that for computing capital gains under Section 50C, the guideline value on the date of the agreement to sell should be considered if part of the consideration was received on or before that date, even if the proviso to Section 50C was formally introduced later. The Revenue's appeal against this decision was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed them to adjudicate the issues on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal observed that while the assessee had submitted reconstructed records, the authorities below made generalized adverse comments without pointing out specific deficiencies. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and furnish necessary explanations.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed them to adjudicate the issues on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed them to adjudicate the issues on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal observed that while the assessee had submitted reconstructed records, the authorities below made generalized adverse comments without pointing out specific deficiencies. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. The delay was condoned, and the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. The delay was condoned, and the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to pursuing an alternative remedy. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. The delay was condoned, and the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that ESOP expenditure is allowable as revenue expenditure. It further clarified that the absence of an entry in the books of accounts does not determine the allowability of expenditure and that SEBI had repealed the relevant guidelines.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. The delay was condoned, and the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals due to pursuing an alternative remedy. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. The delay was condoned, and the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. The delay was condoned, and the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss is allowable as expenditure under Section 37(1) following the Supreme Court decision. It also upheld the deduction of unreceived sale proceeds from both export and total turnover. However, the issue of depreciation on imported software used for domestic sales was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. The delay was condoned, and the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. The delay was condoned, and the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 8,30,000/- as unexplained source for investment. The Ld.CIT(A) found that the document supporting the rental advance lacked evidentiary value as it was not signed by the tenant and the stated amount differed from the original tenancy agreement.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Profit & Loss account did not show any claim for deduction of Rs. 53 lakhs. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO to examine the financial statements and decide the disallowance under Section 40A(3) with a specific finding on whether the deduction was claimed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. The delay was condoned, and the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. The delay was condoned, and the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. The delay was condoned, and the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. The delay was condoned, and the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the specific ground raised by the assessee. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the addition of ₹.9,50,000/- was the maturity amount from a chit fund, supported by clear evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appellate order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient time by the AO to furnish the required details. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify and give credit for tax paid, refund along with interest, and recompute interest under sections 234B and 234C. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.