ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and the revenue had no objection to its withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be no longer interested in pursuing the appeals. Following established legal principles and case law, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be no longer interested in pursuing the appeals. Following established legal principles and case law, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that it is the purpose of the fund, not the individual fund, that needs to be notified in the Official Gazette. It also noted that the proposed transfer of corpus funds to LIC was not implemented and subsequent approvals were granted.

The Tribunal held that the benefit of Section 80IC is triggered in the year of completion of substantial expansion, and this year is the initial assessment year, irrespective of any deduction claimed under Section 80IB.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and jurisdictional High Court decisions. The dismissal is not an affirmation of the lower appellate authority's orders on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had substantially complied with the conditions for accumulation under Section 11(2). The discrepancies were considered clerical errors or rectifiable, and the filing of Form 10 was deemed permissible before the completion of assessment.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to previous appeals where the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which was affirmed by the Apex Court, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee has an option to set off business losses against capital gains, and it is not mandatory to do so. The legislative history of Section 71 of the Income-tax Act supports this interpretation.

The tribunal held that the law aids those who are vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights. Following established legal principles and case law, the tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and a Punjab & Haryana High Court decision. The dismissal does not affirm the CIT(A)'s order on merits.

The Tribunal noted that a previous order with an identical issue had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the penalty issue to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's exercise of revisionary jurisdiction was not justified. It found that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and applied his mind to the issues, and the PCIT's perception of inadequacy was not sufficient to invoke Section 263, especially considering the context and reasonableness of the AO's actions.

The Tribunal noted that a previous order with an identical issue had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the penalty issue to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of penalty afresh. This was done in light of a previous identical order passed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of penalty afresh. This was based on a previous identical order where the matter was similarly remanded.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, following CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and a Punjab & Haryana High Court decision. The dismissal is not an affirmation of the CIT(A)'s order on merits.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on enhanced compensation is in the nature of compensation itself and not taxable as 'income from other sources'. This is because it represents an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on enhanced compensation is in the nature of compensation itself and not taxable as 'income from other sources'. This is because it represents an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on enhanced compensation is in the nature of compensation itself and not taxable as 'income from other sources'. This is because it represents an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on enhanced compensation is in the nature of compensation itself and not taxable as 'income from other sources'. This is because it represents an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on enhanced compensation is in the nature of compensation itself and not taxable as 'income from other sources'. This is because it represents an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was Rs. 32,440/-, which was below the Rs. 20 lacs limit stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular was held to be retrospective in nature.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on enhanced compensation is in the nature of compensation itself and not taxable as 'income from other sources'. This is because it represents an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to 2008-09, a reasonable disallowance under Section 14A can be made on a percentage of exempt income. The Tribunal directed a disallowance of 5% of the tax-exempt income.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the farmers (debtors) were reluctant to appear before the AO due to fear of departmental inquiries. Considering these peculiar facts, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal noted that a previous order with an identical issue had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the penalty issue to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that a previous order with an identical issue had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the penalty issue to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that since the Section 263 order, which formed the basis for the AO's assessment, was quashed, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on enhanced compensation is in the nature of compensation itself and not taxable as 'income from other sources'. This is because it represents an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that no excise duty was payable on work-in-progress as it is levied on manufactured goods when moved out of the factory. Furthermore, even if included, the adjustment would be tax-neutral as it would also be deductible under Section 43B. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was due to the tax effect being below the limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to decide the validity of the penalty notice first. The CIT(A) was directed to call for the specific notice and pass an order on merits thereafter.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not pressed, agreeing with the assessee's submission regarding the low tax effect. The Revenue's counsel also conceded to the facts presented by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not addressed the factual submissions made by the assessee. While acknowledging that such expenses are not automatically deductible, the Tribunal set aside the order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to vary the conclusion. The CIT(A) had relied on previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case and found that the rental income was already included in the total receipts and that the club was to be treated as a mutual concern.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented from producing evidence due to counsel's negligence. The CIT(A) had not addressed these submissions. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) to admit fresh evidence and pass a speaking order.

The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal due to the repeated adjournments and failure to provide necessary records or explain the delay. The assessee was granted liberty to seek a recall if a reasonable cause for the delay could be shown.