ITAT Chennai Judgments — May 2020

The Tribunal found that the nature and source of transactions were not properly explained to the AO. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh examination and decision on merits after affording an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that mere non-compliance with a procedural requirement under Section 54(2) should not deny the benefit of Section 54 if the mandatory requirement under Section 54(1) is fulfilled within the prescribed time. The AO was directed to allow total investments made under Section 54F after verifying utilization for construction within the time limit.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly examine the assessee's claims regarding Form 15G/15H and the retrospective nature of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that payments made towards purchase one year before the sale of the old property and towards construction up to three years after the sale should be considered for the Section 54 deduction. The AO was directed to re-compute the capital gains accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench and the Jurisdictional High Court, which had already held the assessee eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) and not hit by Section 2(15). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench and the Jurisdictional High Court, which had already held the assessee eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) and not hit by Section 2(15). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench and the Jurisdictional High Court, which had already held the assessee eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) and not hit by Section 2(15). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was confirmed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities and that the assessee was not given proper notice of the defects. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication after allowing the assessee to rectify the defects.

The Tribunal held that since a previous order of a co-ordinate bench had already determined the lands to be agricultural and not exigible for capital gains tax, and the subsequent order under Section 263 was annulled, the consequential assessment order could not survive. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order quashing the assessment was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities and that the assessee was not given proper notice of the defects. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication after allowing the assessee to rectify the defects.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal held that since a previous order of a co-ordinate bench had already determined the lands to be agricultural and not exigible for capital gains tax, and the subsequent order under Section 263 was annulled, the consequential assessment order could not survive. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order quashing the assessment was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal relied on a previous order with identical facts where delay was condoned.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient material to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. Consequently, the claim for exemption under Section 10(38) was rejected.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, since the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision regarding delayed PF contributions paid within the return filing due date. It also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of the salary/wages disallowance based on the balance sheet and clarified figures.

The Tribunal held that the additional grounds of appeal were not maintainable as there was no satisfactory evidence to substantiate the claim of wrongly computed admitted income. The CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal for non-payment of self-assessment tax.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the tax effect being below the monetary limit set by CBDT circulars. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection, directing the deletion of the addition made on account of estimated rental income and allowing the claim for interest on housing loan.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment. It held that the sale consideration for shares was taxable, while the non-compete fee was a capital receipt exempt from tax. The payment made to the bank was considered an application of exempt income, not eligible for deduction as diversion by overriding title.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment. It held that the sale consideration for shares was taxable, while the non-compete fee was a capital receipt exempt from tax. The payment made to the bank was considered an application of exempt income, not eligible for deduction as diversion by overriding title.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment. It held that the sale consideration for shares was taxable, while the non-compete fee was a capital receipt exempt from tax. The payment made to the bank was considered an application of exempt income, not eligible for deduction as diversion by overriding title.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment. It held that the sale consideration for shares was taxable, while the non-compete fee was a capital receipt exempt from tax. The payment made to the bank was considered an application of exempt income, not eligible for deduction as diversion by overriding title.

The Tribunal held that the sale of SIM cards/recharge coupons at a discounted rate to distributors is not commission, and therefore, not liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify how the books of accounts reflected the sale discount.

The Tribunal held that the sale of SIM cards/recharge coupons at a discounted rate to distributors is not commission, and therefore, not liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify how the books of accounts reflected the sale discount.

The Tribunal held that the sale of SIM cards/recharge coupons at a discounted rate to distributors is not commission, and therefore, not liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify how the books of accounts reflected the sale discount.

The Tribunal held that the sale of SIM cards/recharge coupons at a discounted rate to distributors is not commission, and therefore, not liable for TDS under Section 194H. However, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify how the books of accounts reflected the sale discount.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in estimating expenditure for income from coconut and mango trees without physical verification. The addition under Section 69C was deemed illegal as no investment was made by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in estimating expenditure for income from coconut and mango trees without physical verification. The addition under Section 69C was deemed illegal as no investment was made by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.