ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — February 2018

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering the principles of natural justice, directed the CIT(A) to grant the assessee another opportunity to be heard and decide the case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for 100% deduction under Section 80IC for substantial expansion is allowable. The Assessing Officer in a subsequent assessment year had already granted this deduction following the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal decided that excess TDS deposited for one quarter could be adjusted against short deductions in previous quarters. It also ruled on the calculation of interest under Section 201(1A) and the applicability of certain circulars and exemptions.

The tribunal condoned the delay of 112 days, finding the reasons to be beyond the assessee's control. The tribunal also remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the penalty issue on merits after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the case was not one of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. It also noted that the penalty notice did not specify the ground for levy. Therefore, the penalty was deleted entirely.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision on substantial expansion under Section 80IC allows for multiple expansions and extended periods of deduction, subject to a ten-year cap. The tax authorities had not examined the claims of substantial expansion.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of capital asset and accrual of capital gains did not occur in the assessment year 2007-08, as the full sale consideration was not received and the intention of the parties was for the transfer to be dependent on full payment and permissions. Therefore, the addition of capital gains was unjustified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding no infirmity. It agreed that the recoveries were part of trading activities and not interest-free advances, and that the advertisement expenses were incurred for business exigencies.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of capital asset and accrual of capital gains did not occur in the assessment year 2007-08, as the full sale consideration was not received and the intention of the parties was for the transfer to be dependent on full payment and permissions. Therefore, the addition of capital gains was unjustified.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the case to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case on merits, including reasons for cash payments.

The Tribunal held that the creation of the reserve in a subsequent year, but before the claim for deduction was considered, is permissible under Section 36(1)(viii). The deduction is allowable if the reserve is made out of the profits of the concerned year.

The Tribunal held that the creation of the reserve in a subsequent year, but before the claim for deduction was considered, is permissible under Section 36(1)(viii). The deduction is allowable if the reserve is made out of the profits of the concerned year.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden to prove the construction was completed before March 31, 2008, relying on High Court decisions regarding the interpretation of completion certificates. The assessee is entitled to the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the creation of the reserve in a subsequent year, but before the claim for deduction was considered, is permissible under Section 36(1)(viii). The deduction is allowable if the reserve is made out of the profits of the concerned year.