ITAT Chennai Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees as withdrawn, considering their application for withdrawal and the issuance of Form 5 by the Department. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the application before the Designated Authority is rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees as withdrawn, considering their applications and the issuance of Form 5 by the Department. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the application before the Designated Authority is rejected.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that the reasons provided by the assessee constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees as withdrawn, considering their application for withdrawal and the issuance of Form 5 by the Department. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the application before the Designated Authority is rejected.

The Tribunal held that the loss due to embezzlement is deductible in the year it is discovered and the assessee realizes it cannot be recovered. The write-off in AY 2008-09 was allowed as the final realization of non-recoverability occurred in that year.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees as withdrawn, considering their application for withdrawal and the issuance of Form 5 by the Department. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the application before the Designated Authority is rejected.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument regarding an exception to the monetary limit.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument regarding exceptions to the monetary limit.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the appeals fell under an exception to the monetary limit.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The exception for constitutional validity challenges was not applicable as the appeals were on merits.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report was due to reasonable cause, as the assessee faced difficulties in finding a new Chartered Accountant after the previous one left. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271B is liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the tax audit report was a venial technical breach without mala fide intention, as the completion of the audit was dependent on the cooperative audit department. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making additions towards the difference in the property's value under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the guideline value is not sacrosanct and cannot be treated as the fair market value, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Smt. Raj Kumari Vimla Devi. The Tribunal noted that the State Government had subsequently revised the guideline value downwards to Rs.2,010 per sq.ft. The Tribunal reasoned that the fair market value of a property for a preceding period cannot be higher than its fair market value for a subsequent period. Therefore, the AO should have considered the revised guideline value to determine the fair market value. Alternatively, if the AO was not convinced, the property should have been referred to the Valuation Officer. Since the AO neither accepted the revised guideline value nor referred the matter to the Valuation Officer, the addition was incorrect. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the revised guideline value or refer the valuation to the DVO to determine the fair market value as on the date of registration and decide the issue accordingly. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer had time to issue a notice under Section 143(2) but instead issued a notice under Section 148, the reassessment proceedings were invalid. The assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the housing project contemplated under Section 80IB(10) can include commercial establishments. They further clarified that the amendment restricting the size of shops should be read prospectively, not retrospectively, following Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the housing project contemplated under Section 80IB(10) can include commercial establishments. They further clarified that the amendment restricting the size of shops should be read prospectively, not retrospectively, following Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, irrespective of whether it has 'A' class or 'B' class members. The Tribunal respectfully followed its coordinate bench's decision in AA-435 Velankattuvalasu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. ACIT, which allowed deduction after considering the Supreme Court judgments in Citizen Co-Operative Society Limited and Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Limited. Regarding the interest income, the Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. This decision was based on the Tribunal's ruling in The Salem Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. v. ITO, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal reversed the orders of the lower authorities and allowed the assessee's claim for deduction on both grounds. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee acquired business contracts and technical resources (employees) and not a capital asset or complete business, the expenses incurred were allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee acquired business contracts and technical resources (employees) and not a capital asset or complete business, the expenses incurred were allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the exception under clause 10(a) of the circular applied.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had adjudicated on an incorrect issue, not the one that was before him. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was provided insufficient time to respond to the show cause notice, especially considering the Covid-19 period. Therefore, the revision orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was provided insufficient time to respond to the show cause notice, especially considering the Covid-19 period. Therefore, the revision orders were set aside.