ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — July 2018

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is part of the compensation itself and not taxable as interest income. This is in line with Supreme Court decisions which treat it as an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is part of the compensation itself and not taxable as interest income. This is in line with Supreme Court decisions which treat it as an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is part of the compensation itself and not taxable as interest income. This is in line with Supreme Court decisions which treat it as an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is part of the compensation itself and not taxable as interest income. This is in line with Supreme Court decisions which treat it as an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is part of the compensation itself and not taxable as interest income. This is in line with Supreme Court decisions which treat it as an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is part of the compensation itself and not taxable as interest income. This is in line with Supreme Court decisions which treat it as an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is part of the compensation itself and not taxable as interest income. This is in line with Supreme Court decisions which treat it as an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is part of the compensation itself and not taxable as interest income. This is in line with Supreme Court decisions which treat it as an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is part of the compensation itself and not taxable as interest income. This is in line with Supreme Court decisions which treat it as an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is part of the compensation itself and not taxable as interest income. This is in line with Supreme Court decisions which treat it as an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is part of the compensation itself and not taxable as interest income. This is in line with Supreme Court decisions which treat it as an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is part of the compensation itself and not taxable as interest income. This is in line with Supreme Court decisions which treat it as an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is part of the compensation itself and not taxable as interest income. This is in line with Supreme Court decisions which treat it as an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not justified as the Assessing Officer did not provide any evidence or discussion regarding the alleged bogus entries in the assessment order. Consequently, the additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not justified as the Assessing Officer did not provide any evidence or discussion regarding the alleged bogus entries in the assessment order. Consequently, the additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is part of the compensation itself and not taxable as interest income. This is in line with Supreme Court decisions which treat it as an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is part of the compensation itself and not taxable as interest income. This is in line with Supreme Court decisions which treat it as an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that since the addition made by the CIT(Appeals), on which the penalty was levied, had been deleted by the ITAT in a separate order, there was no basis for levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for reconsideration. It noted that while Section 10(23C)(vi) has stringent conditions, the CIT(E) should re-examine the facts in light of the assessee's arguments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2013-14, the addition of Rs. 4 lacs was sustained due to lack of evidence. However, for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, additions made under Section 153A were deleted based on a CBDT circular.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2013-14, the addition of Rs. 4 lacs was sustained due to lack of evidence. However, for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, additions made under Section 153A were deleted based on a CBDT circular.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that interest expenditure should be set off against interest income if a direct nexus exists between the deposits from members and the FDRs. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of this nexus.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated an intention to treat the securities as stock-in-trade from the beginning. Therefore, the loss from trading in securities was to be treated as a business loss.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2013-14, the addition of Rs. 4 lacs was sustained due to lack of evidence. However, for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, additions made under Section 153A were deleted based on a CBDT circular.

The Tribunal found that the interest of justice would be served by allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case on merits. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh hearing on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was subsequently granted approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) for the impugned assessment years. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order considering this approval.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the TDS returns. The assessee's belief that the previous authority would continue TDS compliances was considered bonafide and reasonable, thus negating the penalty.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding that Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) was applicable as the income declared post-search was not in the original return. The assessee's contention that no penalty is leviable if the returned income is accepted was rejected.

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on low tax effect, without adjudicating on the merits of the case. The legal issue remains open.

The Tribunal restored the issue of interest-free advances to the AO to examine the nexus between the assessee's own funds and the advances. Similarly, the issue of disallowance of interest expenditure was restored to the AO to verify the direct nexus between interest income and expenditure.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under sections 36(1)(iii) and 40A(3) would enhance the business income eligible for deduction under section 80IC, and therefore, these disallowances would not be taxed separately. The issue of setting off interest expenditure against interest income was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that there is no bar in Section 80IC denying deduction for substantial expansion of an existing unit. The assessee is entitled to the deduction, and the CIT(A) correctly followed the High Court's precedent.

The Tribunal held that there is no bar in Section 80IC denying deduction for substantial expansion of an existing unit. The assessee is entitled to the deduction, and the CIT(A) correctly followed the High Court's precedent.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. It ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A is attracted if no tax-exempt income is earned. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the deletion of interest disallowance as the loan was for specific asset purchase and not diverted. The addition for wastage was also deleted as it was based on assumption and estimation.

The Tribunal held that Section 80IC does not bar the benefit of deduction to new units undertaking substantial expansion. It followed a High Court decision which clarified that multiple substantial expansions are permissible and there can be more than one initial assessment year.

The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, holding that charging interest on delayed payment is a regular business practice arising from a contract. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.