ITAT Chennai Judgments — October 2020

The tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the merits. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant documents and explanations to the CIT(A), who was then instructed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had legally sought an adjournment and the CIT(A) could not decide the appeal without proper adjudication. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the PCIT's revision order lacked specific findings on what was erroneous in the assessment. The PCIT did not dispute the assessee's computation of capital gains or the exemption claimed under Section 54.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if their application under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme is rejected.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had legally sought an adjournment and the CIT(A) could not decide the appeal without proper adjudication. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had legally sought an adjournment and the CIT(A) could not decide the appeal without proper adjudication. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal, following a jurisdictional High Court decision, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to restore the appeal if their application under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' Scheme is rejected.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte without discussing the issues on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present necessary evidence.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that interest on debtors should be taxed on receipt basis as per the cash system of accounting, and disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted when no expenditure is claimed by the assessee. The CIT(A)'s orders were upheld.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee declared a net profit of 11.97%, which is above the threshold for Section 44AD, the Assessing Officer could not disallow expenditure for want of bills and vouchers. The addition made towards disallowance of expenditure was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that interest on debtors should be taxed on receipt basis as per the cash system of accounting, and disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted when no expenditure is claimed by the assessee. The CIT(A)'s orders were upheld.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that profit from the sale of agricultural land cannot be taxed as business income merely because the assessee is in the real estate business. The nature of the land and its use for agricultural purposes until sale are crucial.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits of the case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case and evidence.

The Tribunal directed the assessee to furnish all relevant documents with cogent evidence to support his claim before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issue after affording an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that notional disallowances computed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be added back to the book profit computed under Section 115JB. The Assessing Officer erred in making such an adjustment.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest expenditure is warranted if sufficient interest-free funds are available, exceeding the investments. However, the issue regarding disallowance of other expenses based on average investment value was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal noted that identical issues for earlier assessment years were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. Therefore, the current appeals were also set aside to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the exemption claims under Section 11, taking into account previous tribunal findings and pending writ petitions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and furnish relevant documents.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the merits. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant documents and explanations to the CIT(A), who was then directed to adjudicate the issues on merits.

The Tribunal noted that identical issues for earlier assessment years were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. Therefore, the current appeals were also set aside to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the exemption claims under Section 11, taking into account previous tribunal findings and pending writ petitions.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 due to the low tax effect. The assessee's cross-objection was allowed for statistical purposes, remitting the issue of loan waiver taxability back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, holding that the payment was for purchase of materials and not job work. The Tribunal upheld this, noting that the payee had included the amount in its income and paid taxes, thus no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without condoning the delay. The reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, relating to ambiguity in Section 234E and subsequent judicial pronouncements, were considered sufficient cause.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without condoning the delay. The reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, relating to ambiguity in Section 234E and subsequent judicial pronouncements, were considered sufficient cause.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without condoning the delay. The reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, relating to ambiguity in Section 234E and subsequent judicial pronouncements, were considered sufficient cause.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without condoning the delay. The reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, relating to ambiguity in Section 234E and subsequent judicial pronouncements, were considered sufficient cause.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without condoning the delay. The reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, relating to ambiguity in Section 234E and subsequent judicial pronouncements, were considered sufficient cause.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without condoning the delay. The reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, relating to ambiguity in Section 234E and subsequent judicial pronouncements, were considered sufficient cause.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without condoning the delay. The reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, relating to ambiguity in Section 234E and subsequent judicial pronouncements, were considered sufficient cause.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without condoning the delay. The reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, relating to ambiguity in Section 234E and subsequent judicial pronouncements, were considered sufficient cause.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without condoning the delay. The reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, relating to ambiguity in Section 234E and subsequent judicial pronouncements, were considered sufficient cause.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without condoning the delay. The reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, relating to ambiguity in Section 234E and subsequent judicial pronouncements, were considered sufficient cause.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte without discussing the issues on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly appreciate the material submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issues were remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in e-filing, stating that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of response and evidence before both the lower authorities and the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the assessee to furnish all relevant documents to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was disposed of without affording an effective opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issues were remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that rejecting the application without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the nature of receipts, especially donations, was not correct. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that rejecting the application without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the nature of receipts, especially donations, was not correct. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that rejecting the application without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the nature of receipts, especially donations, was not correct. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication.