ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is to reconsider the issue after duly considering the Audit Report.

The Tribunal held that TDS was not required on payments to the Gunman as the service provider, Punjab Ex-Servicemen Corporation, was exempt under Section 10(26BBB) as per CBDT Circular 07/2015. It also held that Section 43B was not applicable to Co-operative Development Banks, deleting the interest disallowance.

The Tribunal held that advances to wholly-owned subsidiaries for their business purposes are considered to be for commercial expediency, entitling the assessee to interest deduction. For payments to non-residents, the Tribunal found no evidence that the services were technical in nature, thus no TDS obligation arose.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals. The dismissal was due to the low tax effect and did not affirm the CIT(A)'s order on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was validly passed within the time limit after the abatement of settlement proceedings. The assessee's contention regarding the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) was dismissed as the assessment was a consequence of the Settlement Commission's order.

The Tribunal held that mere transfer entries in books of account do not constitute a transfer of property in the eyes of law. Since the assessee corrected these entries in the year under consideration and the property stood in the name of the individual, the addition on account of capital gains could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was valid as it was within the time limit after the abatement of settlement proceedings. The assessee's contention that the assessment was time-barred due to the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was validly passed within the time limit after the abatement of settlement proceedings. The assessee's contention regarding the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) was dismissed as the assessment was a consequence of the Settlement Commission's order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were charitable in nature and not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). Following its own prior decision for earlier assessment years with identical facts, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not on merits but a disposal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim of exemption under Section 11. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed as there was no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not on merits but a dismissal for non-prosecution. Therefore, to serve the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not on merits but a dismissal for non-appearance. The interest of justice would be served by restoring the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not on merits but a dismissal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring the assessee gets a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not on merits but a dismissal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring proper opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not based on merits but was a dismissal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not based on merits but was a dismissal for non-appearance. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring a proper opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not on merits but a disposal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not on merits but a disposal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not on merits but a disposal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not on merits but a disposal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not on merits but a disposal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not on merits but a disposal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not on merits but a disposal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not on merits but a disposal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that Section 10(23C)(iiiab) exempts income received by a person on behalf of an educational institution that exists solely for educational purposes, not for profit, and is wholly or substantially financed by the Government. The Tribunal clarified that this provision does not bar the 'person' from engaging in other business activities, nor does it require the entire income of the 'person' to be from such an institution. The exemption applies to the part of the income received on behalf of an eligible institution. The lower authorities had not examined whether the educational institution, irrespective of the hotel activity, met the criteria of being solely for education, not for profit, and substantially financed by the Government. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify these conditions afresh. For ITA No. 1021/Chd/2016, concerning denial of registration under Section 12A, the Tribunal also restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) for fresh examination, as the prior decision was based on the AO's findings which were now being re-examined.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's repeated non-appearance and adjournments. For the assessee's appeal, some grounds were allowed for statistical purposes, while others were dismissed. The Revenue's appeal was also allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that sales tax incentives received under the Himachal Pradesh Government scheme were capital receipts, not taxable. It also ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A was attracted if no exempt income was earned. The issue under Section 36(1)(iii) was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that Section 10(23C)(iiiab) exempts income received by a person on behalf of an educational institution that exists solely for educational purposes, not for profit, and is wholly or substantially financed by the Government. The Tribunal clarified that this provision does not bar the 'person' from engaging in other business activities, nor does it require the entire income of the 'person' to be from such an institution. The exemption applies to the part of the income received on behalf of an eligible institution. The lower authorities had not examined whether the educational institution, irrespective of the hotel activity, met the criteria of being solely for education, not for profit, and substantially financed by the Government. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify these conditions afresh. For ITA No. 1021/Chd/2016, concerning denial of registration under Section 12A, the Tribunal also restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) for fresh examination, as the prior decision was based on the AO's findings which were now being re-examined.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's repeated non-appearance and adjournments. For the assessee's appeal, some grounds were allowed for statistical purposes, while others were dismissed. The Revenue's appeal was also allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that sales tax incentives received under the Himachal Pradesh Government scheme were capital receipts, not taxable. It also ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A was attracted if no exempt income was earned. The issue under Section 36(1)(iii) was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee has sufficient own funds to make investments, the presumption is that investments are made from own funds, thus disallowance under Section 14A is not attracted. The disallowance was restricted to the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, citing identical facts in a previous year's appeal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding software license expenses, treating them as revenue expenditure, consistent with a prior ruling.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the second proviso to Section 12A(2), which debars such action when registration is granted from the immediately succeeding assessment year. Consequently, the addition made was deleted.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee has sufficient own funds to make investments, the presumption is that investments are made from own funds, thus disallowance under Section 14A is not attracted. The disallowance was restricted to the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee has sufficient own funds to make investments, the presumption is that investments are made from own funds, thus disallowance under Section 14A is not attracted. The disallowance was restricted to the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee has sufficient own funds to make investments, the presumption is that investments are made from own funds, thus disallowance under Section 14A is not attracted. The disallowance was restricted to the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the queries raised by the CIT regarding salary payments and loans.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient own interest-free funds, it is presumed these were used for capital advances, and therefore, no interest-bearing funds were diverted. Consequently, the disallowance of interest was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that even if the rental income was business income, the interest expenditure was allowable as a business expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii). Therefore, it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had a bonafide belief regarding the set-off of interest, and it was not a case of filing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that filing an appeal is not sufficient; it must be effectively pursued. Since the assessee failed to appear and prosecute the appeal, it was dismissed.

The tribunal held that the assessee, as the deductor, was liable to pay interest under Section 201(1A) for failing to deduct TDS, even though the NRI sellers had paid taxes on the capital gains. The liability to deduct tax at source is absolute on the payer.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on funds borrowed specifically for projects and temporarily parked in FDRs is not taxable, aligning with previous ITAT decisions. It also ruled that miscellaneous income earned during project setup should reduce pre-operative expenditure, not be taxed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved a reasonable cause for receiving cash loans, supported by documentary evidence, for urgent requirements. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271D was not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court had ruled in favor of the assessee in similar cases, allowing 100% deduction for units undertaking substantial expansion. The issue was therefore remanded to the Assessing Officer for necessary relief.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This dismissal was based on the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and a jurisdictional High Court decision regarding low tax effect.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's limited request to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income received. The matter was restored to the AO for verification and recalculation.

The Tribunal held that for computing the Gross Total Income, profits and losses of all units, including eligible ones, must be considered. Therefore, setting off losses of one eligible unit against profits of another eligible unit before calculating the 80IC deduction is permissible.

The Tribunal held that for computing the Gross Total Income, profits and losses of all units, including eligible ones, must be considered. Therefore, setting off losses of one eligible unit against profits of another eligible unit before calculating the 80IC deduction is permissible.