ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — September 2018

The Tribunal held that the matter of land valuation should be restored to the AO for fresh inquiry, considering similar cases. It also ruled that the assessee is eligible for indexation benefit from the predecessor owner's acquisition year and is eligible for Section 54 exemption for the purchase of a new house.

The Tribunal held that the matter of land valuation should be restored to the AO for fresh inquiry, considering similar cases. It also ruled that the assessee is eligible for indexation benefit from the predecessor owner's acquisition year and is eligible for Section 54 exemption for the purchase of a new house.

The Tribunal held that the write-off of stock and stores/spares was revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. It directed the Assessing Officer to determine the actual cost incurred and allow the amount accordingly.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the comparable profits used by the AO were not justified and that the interest disallowance was reasonable. The lack of books of account was attributed to the hospital being taken over by a bank.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of EPF/ESI as it was paid before the return filing due date. It also deleted the disallowance of car expenses, finding no evidence of non-business use. The enhancement of income for AY 2014-15 was also held invalid as the transaction was completed in the same year.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the machinery purchase, its transportation, installation, and utilization. The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of depreciation, finding the transactions to be fraudulent.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to first adjudicate the legal ground regarding the non-service of the notice under Section 148. The CIT(A) was directed to verify all necessary facts related to the notice service before deciding the grounds on merits.

The Tribunal held that according to CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, departmental appeals are not maintainable if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lacs. Since no exceptions were brought to notice, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under section 147 was not valid as the issues raised were already examined during the original assessment under section 143(3) and no new information was brought on record. Therefore, the reassessment was based on a change of opinion.

The Tribunal found that further examination was required regarding the dissolution clause, the actual number and health of animals, and the commercial nature of milk transactions. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that according to CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, departmental appeals are not maintainable if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lacs. Since no exceptions were brought to notice, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. The assessee's cross-objection was admitted, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the issue raised.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 20 lacs are not maintainable. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to treat the income from the marriage palace on an estimated net profit rate of 16.49% due to lack of proper books of account. It also agreed with the CIT(Appeals) in allowing rental income from shops as income from house property after statutory deductions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, agreeing that the addition was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessment for the year had not abated, the additions made under Section 153A were not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a valid explanation for the difference in TDS, which was related to disputed billings and not unaccounted receipts. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on an estimated basis without any corroborative material of unexplained investment. The difference in valuation was due to different depreciation methods, both acceptable.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not legally valid as it was based on assumptions and presumptions without any concrete material. The Tribunal also found no merit in the Revenue's appeal on merits, upholding the CIT(A)'s findings.

For assessment years where the original assessment had abated due to the search, the assessee is entitled to claim deductions. However, for assessment years where the original assessment was completed and no incriminating material was found during the search, the assessee cannot claim deductions not claimed in the original return.

The Tribunal held that the assured returns were in the nature of interest on a debt claim against the developer, as the assessee did not acquire any lien or interest in the property despite paying 95% of the sale price. The assessee had rightly offered the income as interest and paid tax accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the assured returns were in the nature of interest on a debt claim against the developer, as the assessee did not acquire any lien or interest in the property despite paying 95% of the sale price. The assessee had rightly offered the income as interest and paid tax accordingly.

For assessment years where the original assessment had abated due to the search, the assessee is entitled to claim deductions. However, for assessment years where the original assessment was completed and no incriminating material was found during the search, the assessee cannot claim deductions not claimed in the original return.

The Tribunal held that the assured returns were in the nature of interest on a debt claim against the developer, as the assessee did not acquire any lien or interest in the property despite paying 95% of the sale price. The assessee had rightly offered the income as interest and paid tax accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the assured returns were in the nature of interest on a debt claim against the developer, as the assessee did not acquire any lien or interest in the property despite paying 95% of the sale price. The assessee had rightly offered the income as interest and paid tax accordingly.

The Tribunal held that levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the assessee acted under a bonafide belief regarding its registration status. The assessee's conduct did not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the assessee acted under a bonafide belief regarding its registration status. The assessee's conduct did not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

For assessment years where the original assessment had abated due to the search, the assessee is entitled to claim deductions. However, for assessment years where the original assessment was completed and no incriminating material was found during the search, the assessee cannot claim deductions not claimed in the original return.

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court's decision relied upon was no longer good law. However, due to the low tax effect, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the grounds of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below failed to point out specific infirmities in the bills or vouchers provided by the assessee. Since the expenses were consistently claimed as payments to labour and gardeners and reflected in the books, the estimated disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to rental income as not pressed. It upheld the confirmation of additions for unexplained investment in immovable properties, finding the assessee's explanation unsatisfactory. However, it allowed the benefit of telescoping for additions made in preceding assessment years.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the Rs. 4,50,000/- cash deposit, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the denial of telescoping benefits. However, for the Rs. 3,43,280/- addition concerning the employee's account, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention due to lack of inquiry from the employee and restricted the addition to Rs. 50,000/-.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the amount of tax-exempt income. This was based on various High Court decisions, including the jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment was initiated after a significant lapse of time without any fresh material or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose facts. The pre-condition for assuming jurisdiction under the first proviso to Section 147 was not met.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the assessee's arguments regarding the reconciliation of stock data. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration of the reconciliation statement.

The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was against the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly concerning the possession of the plot. The CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal and relying on the registration deed over documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not meet the statutory requirements of a speaking order and failed to address the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were contrary to the CBDT Circular. The circular, being retrospective, bound the Tax Authorities.

The Tribunal held that assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct, and acceptance of an addition in assessment does not automatically warrant a penalty. Considering the assessee's returned income and the minor discrepancy, the penalty was not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is retrospective and binding on tax authorities. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was based was deleted, the penalty itself cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the statutory mandate by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without a speaking order. The impugned order was set aside and the case was remanded back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal, considering the repeated non-appearance of the assessee and the presumption of lack of seriousness, dismissed the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall if a reasonable cause for non-representation could be shown.

The Tribunal restored the penalty appeal to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the penalty appeal after the quantum proceedings were finalized and to give the assessee an opportunity to address any issues arising from an adverse view in the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to first bring the legal heirs on record after verification and then pass a speaking order after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed on this ground, as the tax authorities are bound by the CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty for Section 40A(3) violations without addressing the assessee's explanations, remanding this issue back. However, the penalty for unexplained share application money was confirmed due to the assessee's failure to provide any justification.

The Tribunal restored the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was cautioned against abusing this opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's inability to appear before the PCIT due to unavoidable circumstances and the complexity of the issue, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the assessee's arguments regarding the reconciliation of stock data. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration of the reconciliation statement.