ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — May 2018

The Tribunal held that since the addition on account of grants-in-aid, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been restored back to the Assessing Officer by the ITAT in quantum proceedings, the penalty proceedings had become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a commission agent, earning a fixed commission of Rs. 200 per truck, and did not bear profit or loss risks. Therefore, estimating GP on gross receipts and disallowing payments to truck owners was unjustified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the bonafide mistake of the counsel. The issue of deduction under Section 80-IC was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration in light of the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed it to decide the issues on merit. The limitation for the e-filed appeal was to be considered from the date of the manual filing.

The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be met by giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to comply with the notices promptly.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and cannot be a mere consequential action to an addition. The penalty was deleted as no independent material was brought on record to prove concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing evidence before the Assessing Officer due to his counsel's non-compliance. Therefore, the CIT(A) was directed to admit the additional evidence under Rule 46A and pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search and the assessment had not abated, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified. The order of the CIT(Appeals) deleting the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's request for an adjournment, concluding that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to persistent delays in filing required documents. The Tribunal cited previous orders and case law to support its decision.

The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A of the Act did not permit adjustments for fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS returns. Therefore, the levy in this case was without the authority of law.

The Tribunal held that since the purchase and sale of shares had been examined and accepted as genuine in a prior assessment year (AY 2011-12) concerning the same assessee, the purchase of shares could not be considered unexplained investment in the current assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have conducted further inquiries, including summoning the lender, before making the addition. The assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing evidence of the loan transaction.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not justifiable as the jewellery was accumulated over the years, and the assessee's husband had already surrendered a significant amount for jewellery, availing the benefit of the CBDT circular. The benefit of the circular cannot be claimed year after year.

The Tribunal found that the additional evidence was crucial to the case and that the issues regarding capital gains and deductions required fresh examination. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that only net interest, after deducting expenses, should be considered for exclusion under Section 80HHC. It also ruled that software implementation expenses were revenue in nature and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of ad-hoc disallowances related to demerger expenses. The Tribunal also confirmed that sale of shares held as investments were not speculative income.

The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in M/s Stovekraft India, which held that there is no bar to claiming 100% deduction after substantial expansion. The impugned order was set aside, and the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for 100% deduction under Section 80IC on profits arising from substantial expansion, following a High Court decision. However, interest income from FDRs and income from drug license fee were not eligible for deduction as they lacked a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity.

The Tribunal held that since the disallowance was based on a High Court decision that was later reversed, and all relevant details were disclosed, the assessee cannot be charged with furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income. Therefore, the penalty is deleted.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the commission was salary or business profit, and thus whether TDS was deductible and timely deposited, was debatable. Therefore, it was not a mistake apparent from the record, and rectification under Section 154 was not permissible.

The Tribunal restored the issue of corpus fund addition to the AO for fresh consideration, similar to the previous assessment year. For donation income, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to verify and bring the correct amount to tax after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for 100% deduction under Section 80IC on profits arising from substantial expansion, following a High Court decision. However, interest income from FDRs and income from drug license fee were not eligible for deduction as they lacked a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity.

The Tribunal held that based on the construction sanction date and a subsequent letter indicating completion of multiple floors by 2005, it was reasonable to assume the investment was made prior to the relevant financial year. Therefore, the addition was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that only net interest, after deducting expenses, should be considered for exclusion under Section 80HHC. It also ruled that software implementation expenses were revenue in nature and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of ad-hoc disallowances related to demerger expenses. The Tribunal also confirmed that sale of shares held as investments were not speculative income.

The Tribunal held that only net interest, after deducting expenses, should be considered for exclusion under Section 80HHC. It also ruled that software implementation expenses were revenue in nature and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of ad-hoc disallowances related to demerger expenses. The Tribunal also confirmed that sale of shares held as investments were not speculative income.

The Tribunal held that only net interest, after deducting expenses, should be considered for exclusion under Section 80HHC. It also ruled that software implementation expenses were revenue in nature and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of ad-hoc disallowances related to demerger expenses. The Tribunal also confirmed that sale of shares held as investments were not speculative income.

The Tribunal held that only net interest, after deducting expenses, should be considered for exclusion under Section 80HHC. It also ruled that software implementation expenses were revenue in nature and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of ad-hoc disallowances related to demerger expenses. The Tribunal also confirmed that sale of shares held as investments were not speculative income.

The Tribunal held that only net interest, after deducting expenses, should be considered for exclusion under Section 80HHC. It also ruled that software implementation expenses were revenue in nature and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of ad-hoc disallowances related to demerger expenses. The Tribunal also confirmed that sale of shares held as investments were not speculative income.

The Tribunal held that only net interest, after deducting expenses, should be considered for exclusion under Section 80HHC. It also ruled that software implementation expenses were revenue in nature and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of ad-hoc disallowances related to demerger expenses. The Tribunal also confirmed that sale of shares held as investments were not speculative income.

The Tribunal held that only net interest, after deducting expenses, should be considered for exclusion under Section 80HHC. It also ruled that software implementation expenses were revenue in nature and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of ad-hoc disallowances related to demerger expenses. The Tribunal also confirmed that sale of shares held as investments were not speculative income.

The Tribunal followed its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a State and therefore not immune from tax.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision in M/s Stovekraft India vs. CIT. The High Court ruled that there is no bar in Section 80IC denying 100% deduction for substantial expansion.

The Tribunal noted that the same issue for earlier assessment years was decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, following the coordinate bench's decision, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the obligation to get books of accounts audited arises only when books are maintained. If books are not maintained, the penalty should be levied under Section 271A, and not Section 271B. Imposing penalty under Section 271B when books are not maintained is erroneous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing substantial justice. Additional evidence was admitted, and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for re-examination of the documents and to obtain a report from the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds available, no disallowance of interest expenditure is warranted for advances made, even if the funds are mixed. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine if the FDRs were made in the normal course of the society's activities of providing credit facilities. The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction for interest paid against interest earned on FDRs due to lack of established nexus.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, agreeing that the cash deposits were adequately explained by the sale of agricultural land and implements. The Tribunal found no reason to doubt the explanation solely due to a time gap between receiving the cash and depositing it, especially since the Revenue failed to prove utilization elsewhere or other sources of income.

The CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions made by the AO. Additions under section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search and the assessment is pending or abated.

The Tribunal held that intimations under Section 200A are appealable under Section 246A, and the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals as non-maintainable. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that levying fees under Section 234E via Section 200A intimations prior to June 1, 2015, was without the authority of law.

The Tribunal held that the sufficiency of funds available with an institution is not a condition for granting approval under Section 80G. The CIT(Exemption) failed to examine the eligibility based on the conditions laid out in Section 80G(5).