ITAT Chennai Judgments — June 2020

The tribunal held that since the assessee did not earn any exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted, following the Supreme Court decision in Chettinad Logistics. The grounds related to fair market value were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable if no exempt income is earned. For employee PF contributions, the Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision allowing deduction if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income.

The Tribunal noted that the cash book was not produced before the AO or CIT(A). Considering the interest of natural justice and the admitted absence of representation before the CIT(A), the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the withdrawals from the firm's bank account were not used for any other purpose, and therefore, the claim of gifts from parents could not be doubted. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was non-maintainable in light of the CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd. The circular clearly stated that pending appeals below the specified tax limits should be withdrawn or not pressed.

The assessee submitted a letter to the Tribunal expressing its wish to withdraw the appeal as the re-computation by the TPO resulted in substantial relief, making the appeal infructuous. The Departmental Representative had no objection.

The Tribunal noted that crucial evidence was not presented before the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted an opportunity to substantiate its claim before the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was likely part of the sale consideration for the immovable property, considering the timing of the deposit and the common practice of cash transactions in real estate. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute capital gains by including this amount.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to substantiate its case after considering the written submissions.

The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for not producing evidence in time to be substantiated due to financial hardships. However, since the evidence was produced for the first time before the Tribunal, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to substantiate its case after considering the written submissions.

The Tribunal noted that the return filed by the assessee was invalid but contained evidence of income under Section 44AD and interest income not considered by the AO. The assessee also needed to explain cash deposits.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that customer list and goodwill fall under the definition of intangible assets eligible for depreciation. Following its own previous decisions, the Tribunal allowed the depreciation claim.

The Tribunal held that adding the amount already confirmed in the hands of the firm to the partners on a protective basis amounts to double addition. Therefore, the addition in the hands of the partners was deleted.

The Tribunal held that adding the amount already confirmed in the hands of the firm to the partners on a protective basis amounts to double addition. Therefore, the addition in the hands of the partners was deleted.