ITAT Chennai Judgments — December 2020

The Tribunal noted that for a subsequent year, the CIT(A) had directed capitalization of interest until the asset was put to use. Following this precedent, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the date the asset was put to use and allow capitalization of interest accordingly, along with depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues of agricultural income and fixed deposit investments and taken possible views. Therefore, the PCIT erred in revising the assessment order under Section 263 as it was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues of agricultural income and fixed deposit investments and taken possible views. Therefore, the PCIT erred in revising the assessment order under Section 263 as it was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection by directing the Assessing Officer to allow 50% of the claimed cost of improvement.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues of agricultural income and fixed deposit investments and taken possible views. Therefore, the PCIT erred in revising the assessment order under Section 263 as it was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues of agricultural income and fixed deposit investments and taken possible views. Therefore, the PCIT erred in revising the assessment order under Section 263 as it was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds, especially when the defects were rectified and the reasons for the initial mistake were bonafide. Substantial justice should be considered over technicalities.

The Tribunal allowed 100% depreciation on the Bolero Van as expenditure under Section 35(1)(iv) based on a High Court ruling. The issue of silver futures loss was remanded, and the Section 14A disallowance was allowed for statistical purposes pending verification of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record due satisfaction before making the disallowance under Section 14A, as required by the Act and judicial precedents. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that export commission paid to foreign agents for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India and thus not subject to TDS. Consequently, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) is warranted for non-deduction of TDS.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without confronting it to the Assessing Officer, violating Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the issues on merits. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present necessary evidence.

The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide a meaningful opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the issue afresh. The assessee was also directed to cooperate with the department.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues of agricultural income and fixed deposit investments and taken possible views. Therefore, the PCIT erred in revising the assessment order under Section 263 as it was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds, especially when the defects were rectified and the reasons for the initial mistake were bonafide. Substantial justice should be considered over technicalities.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues of agricultural income and fixed deposit investments and taken possible views. Therefore, the PCIT erred in revising the assessment order under Section 263 as it was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the nature of the expenditure and the software. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of prior period expenses to the AO for fresh examination. For the employee's PF contribution, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal allowed the deduction as it was paid before the due date of filing the return of income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it dismissed the appeals as not maintainable due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 50 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, considering the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for filing appeals before the ITAT, and noting that the tax effect in these appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the issue of applicability of withholding tax on remittances on merits, following a previous co-ordinate bench decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the issue of applicability of withholding tax on remittances on merits, following a previous co-ordinate bench decision.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether expenses capitalized were genuinely incurred for acquisition/installation of plant and machinery needs re-examination by the AO. Similarly, the date of putting assets to use for claiming depreciation requires verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the issue of applicability of withholding tax on remittances on merits, following a previous co-ordinate bench decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the issue of applicability of withholding tax on remittances on merits, following a previous co-ordinate bench decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, considering the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for filing appeals before the ITAT, and noting that the tax effect in these appeals was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which sets a monetary limit for appeals, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, following CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which sets a monetary limit for appeals, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the ingredients for addition under Section 69C were not met as the purchase was verifiable and payments were made through banking channels. However, to do justice to the revenue, the Tribunal directed the addition of the gross profit on the omitted purchase.

The Tribunal, following its previous orders in similar cases of co-owners, remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The assessee was directed to provide relevant materials, and the AO was instructed to decide the matter in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity.