ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of compensation and exempt from tax under Section 10(37), following Supreme Court judgments. The Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to repeated non-appearances. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of compensation and exempt from tax under Section 10(37), following Supreme Court judgments. The Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available from share capital and premium, making the diversion of interest-bearing funds argument invalid. The CIT(A) had also noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the issue during assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the departmental appeal was below the tax effect limit as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been given sufficient opportunity to explain the deposits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the agricultural land as a capital asset. The land was rural and used for agriculture, and thus exempt from capital gains tax.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 regarding the sale of land as the AO had made proper inquiries, and the co-owner's case was not disturbed. However, regarding bank interest, the assessee conceded it was omitted, and the PCIT's action was sustained to that extent.

The Tribunal held that the factum of payment and its business purpose were not disputed. Citing various High Court decisions, it found no reason to sustain the addition, directing the AO to allow the relief.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the agricultural land as a capital asset. The land was rural and used for agriculture, and thus exempt from capital gains tax.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest on investments is not sustainable when the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds available. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of addition under Section 14A, noting that the assessee had not earned any exempt income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available from share capital and premium, making the diversion of interest-bearing funds argument invalid. The CIT(A) had also noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the issue during assessment.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of compensation and exempt from tax under Section 10(37), following Supreme Court judgments. The Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of compensation and exempt from tax under Section 10(37), following Supreme Court judgments. The Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of compensation and exempt from tax under Section 10(37), following Supreme Court judgments. The Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of compensation and exempt from tax under Section 10(37), following Supreme Court judgments. The Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the agricultural land as a capital asset. The land was rural and used for agriculture, and thus exempt from capital gains tax.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the agricultural land as a capital asset. The land was rural and used for agriculture, and thus exempt from capital gains tax.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of compensation and exempt from tax under Section 10(37), following Supreme Court judgments. The Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the agricultural land as a capital asset. The land was rural and used for agriculture, and thus exempt from capital gains tax.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available from share capital and premium, making the diversion of interest-bearing funds argument invalid. The CIT(A) had also noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the issue during assessment.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the agricultural land as a capital asset. The land was rural and used for agriculture, and thus exempt from capital gains tax.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of compensation and exempt from tax under Section 10(37), following Supreme Court judgments. The Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest on investments is not sustainable when the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds available. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of addition under Section 14A, noting that the assessee had not earned any exempt income.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of compensation and exempt from tax under Section 10(37), following Supreme Court judgments. The Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of compensation and exempt from tax under Section 10(37), following Supreme Court judgments. The Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was to be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of compensation and exempt from tax under Section 10(37), following Supreme Court judgments. The Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim is a prerequisite for invoking Section 14A. Since this issue was not examined by the CIT(A), the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of compensation and exempt from tax under Section 10(37), following Supreme Court judgments. The Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The cross-objections were not pressed by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.

The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80-IB should be allowed on the gross total income after factoring in all losses, irrespective of the nature of the activity. The orders of the lower authorities were confirmed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee-trust. The primary finding was that the CIT(E) had a valid and reasonable apprehension that in the absence of a dissolution clause, and given the shift in control from government officials to private individuals after 2007, the properties of the trust, which were funded by government grants, might be distributed among private members upon dissolution. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made misleading submissions before the lower authorities and the Tribunal by concealing the fact that the term of the Board of Governors had not been extended since 2007, and that private members had taken control. The Tribunal expressed displeasure at the attempt to mislead by presenting false facts and playing fraud on the tax authorities and the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The issue of whether the subsequent addition of a dissolution clause rectified the defect was implicitly decided against the assessee due to the finding of concealment and misleading submissions.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The assessee's cross objections were not pressed and were therefore dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the submissions of both parties and the material on record, specifically citing the low tax effect as per the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The cross-objections were not pressed by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The assessee's cross objections were not pressed and were therefore dismissed.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The cross-objections were not pressed by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.