ITAT Chennai Judgments — August 2020

The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was less than the monetary limit specified by the CBDT, the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on assumptions and did not automatically amount to concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders and, in the interest of justice and natural justice, decided to give the assessees one more opportunity. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and the matters were remitted back.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders and, in the interest of justice and natural justice, decided to give the assessees one more opportunity. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and the matters were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and, in the interest of justice and natural justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and, in the interest of justice and natural justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh order.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment. The AO was directed to inquire into the entire factual matrix surrounding the property acquisition, including the differential amount retained by the Managing Trustee and the initial payments made by her.

The Tribunal found that the nature of the impugned transactions was not properly examined by the lower authorities. A certificate from the university indicated that the assessee handed over demand drafts and the university accounted for the fees. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that since the transactions were conducted online through a recognized stock exchange and STT was paid, the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(38) could not be denied. The Revenue failed to prove the assessee's involvement in any fraudulent activity.

The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their claim before the Assessing Officer. The appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was not sustainable. The assessee's own interest-free funds deployed in business were significantly higher than its investments, and the authorities below did not rebut the assessee's plea that borrowed funds were used for business purposes, not investments.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to substantiate his claims regarding cash deposits. If the assessee remains non-cooperative, the AO can draw inferences.

The Tribunal found it unclear if all evidence was properly appreciated by the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the case was remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination, with the onus on the assessee to provide proper evidence.