ITAT Chennai Judgments — September 2020

The Tribunal restored the issue of profit on sale of assets to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim. For earned leave payments, the Tribunal also restored the matter to the AO for de-novo adjudication after admitting additional evidence filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. The issues raised were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the delay was due to mishandling by the previous consultant and not the assessee's fault. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeals back for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. The issues raised were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) committed a jurisdictional error by dismissing the appeal on limitation without considering that the impugned order was the AO's order on the rectification application, not the original intimation. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the delay was due to mishandling by the previous consultant and not the assessee's fault. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeals back for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the delay was due to mishandling by the previous consultant and not the assessee's fault. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeals back for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court had set aside the previous orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. Therefore, the assessment orders, which were consequential to the denial of exemption, could not survive.

The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court had set aside the previous orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. Therefore, the assessment orders, which were consequential to the denial of exemption, could not survive.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Tribunal clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, held that the employees' contribution to PF & ESI deposited before the due date for filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden by filing sales invoices and books of accounts. The Assessing Officer erred in making an addition without providing an opportunity to cross-examine the denying party.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain certain entries regarding the sale consideration and unexplained investments. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 404 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal reasoned that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be referred. The statutory right of appeal should not be rendered redundant by dismissing the application for condonation of delay on technical grounds. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessee, a statutory university with objects related to medical education, had its exemption claim under Section 10(23C)(vi) rejected by the CIT(E) solely on the ground of not furnishing relevant materials. While acknowledging a lapse on the part of the assessee, the Tribunal, keeping in view the assessee's status and its primary objective of discharging important aspects of medical education, decided to give one more opportunity. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the issue was remitted back for fresh examination. The assessee was directed to file all necessary information without fail. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

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

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity for hearing and to consider all evidence, including the disputed written submissions.

The Tribunal held that the loan transaction was not related to the assessee's business and thus disallowed the bad debt claim. However, it allowed the chit loss as a revenue expenditure, noting that the revenue had taxed the dividend income from the same chit fund in earlier years.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of personal expenses and professional fees. However, the issue of road repairs and maintenance was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and decision.