ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — November 2018

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's medical condition was a valid reason for non-appearance. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had provided evidence of an agreement to sell property, suggesting the source of funds was explained.

The Tribunal found that the issue of Section 80IB(10) deduction required further examination of evidence. Regarding travel expenses, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issue with specific details and evidence, as the provided documents were insufficient.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the business purpose of the MD's UK trip, upholding its disallowance. However, for the Germany trip, the Tribunal found no justification for disallowing expenses as excessive or personal, directing the disallowance to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the issue of Section 80IB(10) deduction required further examination of evidence. Regarding travel expenses, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issue with specific details and evidence, as the provided documents were insufficient.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had fulfilled the conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271AAA by specifying the source of income and paying taxes. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessees had fulfilled the conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271AAA by specifying the source of income in their surrender letters and that the penalty was wrongly confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to Section 14A and Section 80P, relying on past precedents and the pending Supreme Court decision. Ground 4 concerning trademark charges was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal noted that it was not evident how notices were sent and accepted the assessee's oral prayer. The impugned order was set aside to the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's CA's absence was due to a genuine reason, similar to a previous case where the issue was remanded. Therefore, the assessee should not be penalized for the CA's negligence.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh decision. The AO was directed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for additional depreciation was made before the AO and should have been considered. The CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had no reason to be aggrieved was incorrect. The issue was restored to the AO for verification and adjudication.

The Tribunal agreed that the software license acquisition was a capital expenditure, but remanded the matter to the AO for re-computation of disallowance under Section 14A, considering only the investments held by the firm.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's arguments regarding prompt payment to laborers and the applicability of Rule 6DD exceptions (f), (g), and (k) were not acceptable. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination after providing the assessee an opportunity to prove the genuineness of the purchases and utilization of materials.

The Tribunal held that since the revenue had accepted that no disallowance was warranted in a prior assessment year for similar advances, it could not change its stand. For a new advance made in the impugned year, the Tribunal found sufficient funds available from the assessee's financial statements, directing deletion of the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The Ld. DR could not provide any exceptions to this circular.

The Tribunal held that interest received on Income Tax refund is statutory interest and taxable under the head 'Income from other Sources'. The addition on account of interest on FDRs was deleted by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, holding that the method of computing net profit and book profit should be consistent. Therefore, income from other sources included in the profit and loss account for ascertaining book profit for partner remuneration cannot be discarded.

The Tribunal agreed that the software license acquisition was a capital expenditure, but remanded the matter to the AO for re-computation of disallowance under Section 14A, considering only the investments held by the firm.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not have followed the CBDT instruction regarding reference to TPO as it was issued after the assessment order was passed. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Avon Cycles Ltd. does not displace the presumption theory upheld in Hero Cycles Ltd. If an assessee demonstrates sufficient own interest-free funds, it is presumed these were used for non-business advances.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by deleting an addition related to cash deposits. It dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding deemed dividend as the recipient was a registered society, and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on seized documents, finding the surrender covered the unaccounted income.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by deleting an addition related to cash deposits. It dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding deemed dividend as the recipient was a registered society, and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on seized documents, finding the surrender covered the unaccounted income.

The Tribunal, considering the nature of expenditure and the meager disallowance, reduced the disallowance to Rs. 50,000, acknowledging that some expenditures might not have specific bills.

The Tribunal held that the orders of the lower authorities lacked proper discussion on whether the deposits were trade advances or unsecured loans. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication after considering the facts and applicable law.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not attracted in this case due to a bonafide mistake in calculating short-term capital gains and debiting interest. The assessee was not a habitual defaulter and had provided a satisfactory explanation.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to confront the assessee with the adverse material relied upon, violating principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside due to this arbitrary action.

The Tribunal found that the evidence submitted by the assessee was neither sufficient nor relevant. However, since the department did not oppose the prayer for remand, the issue was set aside back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer merely retained additions from the original assessment and the CIT(A) had already restricted the disallowance in the first round, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, there was no grievance left for the assessee. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer merely retained additions from the original assessment and the CIT(A) had already restricted the disallowance in the first round, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, there was no grievance left for the assessee. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Revenue requested to withdraw the appeal as the tax effect was below the limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds of low tax effect.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's past and future profit trends, reduced the estimated net profit percentages from those determined by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). The net profit for AY 2003-04 & 2004-05 was fixed at 2.00% and for AY 2005-06 & 2006-07 at 2.5%.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not attracted as the assessee had a running account with the company with a substantial credit balance. It also held that disallowances under sections 36(1)(iii) and 14A were not warranted as the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover the advances and interest-free advances.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in treating donations as anonymous under Section 115BBC without giving the assessee an opportunity to prove the donors' details. The matter was remanded for a fresh speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee consistently followed a method of accounting where sale proceeds were recognized only after the completion of the entire project on a plot. The AO merely shifted profits between years without any change in total taxable income, and the assessee's offer of income in the subsequent year was genuine. Therefore, no concealment of income was established.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee could not provide evidence of supplying the soft copy, the information was supplied in hard copy within the stipulated period. It was not a case of intentional avoidance of compliance.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's past and future profit trends, reduced the estimated net profit percentages from those determined by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). The net profit for AY 2003-04 & 2004-05 was fixed at 2.00% and for AY 2005-06 & 2006-07 at 2.5%.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back. The CIT was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

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

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that sales tax subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt, following its previous decisions on identical issues. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s directions regarding interest income eligibility for Section 10B deduction and adjustments for Section 80HHC calculations.

The Tribunal held that re-examining the capital gains issue was unnecessary as it was already examined multiple times, quashing the revisionary order. However, the addition under Section 68 was upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide reliable evidence for the source of funds.

The Tribunal quashed the order passed under Section 263, finding no justification for re-examining an issue already thoroughly examined. The addition under Section 68 was confirmed as the assessee failed to provide reliable evidence for the cash credit.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the additions were on account of notional rent and the assessee had disclosed all property particulars. The non-disclosure of a small amount of interest was considered an inadvertent mistake, and the assessee's bonafides were not doubted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed as the assessee had fully disclosed all relevant facts. The assessee genuinely believed the interest income was inextricably linked to its business activities, and there was no concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B is chargeable on the increased tax liability in reassessment proceedings, even if no interest was charged in the initial assessment. Explanation 2 to Section 234B(1) treats reassessment under Section 147 as a regular assessment for the purpose of charging interest.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue on the grounds of low tax effect. The Cross Objections filed by the assessee were also dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that both the TPO and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) had failed to follow the directions of the ITAT from the previous round. Therefore, the issue of determining the arm's length price of AMP expenses was restored back to the TPO.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's objects, aimed at promoting entrepreneurship and economic growth, were charitable in nature and for public utility. The denial of registration was based on unsubstantiated grounds.

The Tribunal held that the issue of taxing capital gains in this case was debatable, considering the ownership and transfer aspects. Following coordinate bench decisions on identical facts, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.