ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — November 2018

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 upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that Section 14A is applicable only when there is actual receipt of exempt income. The court also upheld the deletion of disallowance for club expenses, finding them to be for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not incur interest expenditure on borrowed funds, the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A was unjustified. Following its own previous decisions on identical facts, the Tribunal also deleted the disallowance of administrative expenses.

The Tribunal, following a previous decision in a group case, held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the by-products of paddy given to millers for milling. The appeals of the Revenue were decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal, following a previous decision in a similar group case, held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the bye-products of paddy given to millers for milling. The Tribunal found that the issue was squarely covered by the earlier ruling.

The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained jewellery to the Assessing Officer for verification. The AO is to check if the Department disputed this issue before the Settlement Commission.

Since the CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, the subsequent assessment order giving effect to it became infructuous and unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had paid the taxes and interest before the penalty was levied, the penalty was not sustainable. The Revenue's cross-objections were dismissed as time-barred and not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that the 'Langar' expenses, though not directly linked, could be considered for business growth and customer attraction, especially given the meager amount. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the exemption. The assessee had provided evidence of prior registration and consistent assessment as a charitable trust in earlier years, and there was no change in its activities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of running a call center falls under Sr.No.13 of Part 'C' of the Fourteenth Schedule. The requirement for NIC code and Excise Classification was found to be applicable only for manufacturing activities, which the assessee was not engaged in.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was aware of the payments being made in earlier years and that the registration was delayed. The Tribunal found no escapement of revenue or under-assessment in the current year, as any issue with the land purchase would relate to earlier years. Similarly, regarding profit fall, the Tribunal noted the AO had examined the profit and the assessee's explanations for accounting changes were plausible.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 for several issues, finding that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiries. However, the Tribunal upheld the revision concerning the examination of advances received from individuals and advances for land/biana.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the exemption. The assessee had provided evidence of prior registration and consistent assessment as a charitable trust in earlier years, and there was no change in its activities.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT circular regarding low tax effect, which the tax authorities are bound to follow.

The Tribunal held that the Rs. 50,00,000 advance was related to agricultural land, which is not a capital asset, and thus the receipt was not taxable. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow credit for cash withdrawals of Rs. 3,50,000 after verification and deleted the addition of Rs. 4,00,000, stating the AO did not conduct proper inquiry regarding the withdrawal by a third party.

The Tribunal restored issues related to financial assistance, performance awards, and departmental charges to the Assessing Officer for verification of actual payment or incurrence of expenditure. The claim for wooden crates and poly-covers as revenue expenditure was allowed.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee has sufficient own funds (share capital, reserves), it is presumed that interest-free funds are used for non-interest bearing investments. Therefore, disallowance of interest on advances made from own funds is not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of running a call center falls under Sr.No.13 of Part 'C' of the Fourteenth Schedule. The requirement for NIC code and Excise Classification was found to be applicable only for manufacturing activities, which the assessee was not engaged in.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of running a call center falls under Sr.No.13 of Part 'C' of the Fourteenth Schedule. The requirement for NIC code and Excise Classification was found to be applicable only for manufacturing activities, which the assessee was not engaged in.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to decide the issues on merits and should have considered the assessee's written submissions. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of running a call center falls under Sr.No.13 of Part 'C' of the Fourteenth Schedule. The requirement for NIC code and Excise Classification was found to be applicable only for manufacturing activities, which the assessee was not engaged in.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of running a call center falls under Sr.No.13 of Part 'C' of the Fourteenth Schedule. The requirement for NIC code and Excise Classification was found to be applicable only for manufacturing activities, which the assessee was not engaged in.

The Tribunal deleted the addition for disallowance of expenditure related to tax-exempt income as no such income was earned. The issue of TDS disallowance was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of payee's tax compliance.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) did not consider the additional legal grounds. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the presumption theory, where investment is presumed to be from own funds if sufficient interest-free funds are available, is still valid. The Supreme Court's decision in Avon Cycles Ltd. does not displace this theory, especially when the assessee demonstrates sufficient own funds.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee followed the cash system of accounting for receipts, it could not claim related expenditures on an accrual basis as per Section 145(1). The disallowance for book profit calculation under Section 115JB was also upheld.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee followed the cash system of accounting for receipts, it could not claim related expenditures on an accrual basis as per Section 145(1). The disallowance for book profit calculation under Section 115JB was also upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, following 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 held that no disallowance of interest is warranted if sufficient interest-free funds are available with the assessee to cover interest-free advances. It also held that delayed deposit of employee's contribution to ESIC, FP, and EPF is allowable if deposited before the return filing date.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had relied on various case laws, including Supreme Court decisions, to hold that manual filing before assessment completion was acceptable.

The Tribunal held that based on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Aarham Softronics, the assessee is entitled to 100% deduction on eligible profits for substantial expansion, as the year of expansion becomes the initial assessment year. The restriction to 25% by the lower authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that an assessee is entitled to 100% deduction for the first five years and only 25% (or 30% for companies) for the subsequent five years under Section 80-IC. A substantial expansion does not entitle an assessee to a fresh period of 100% deduction.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities made additions based on assumptions and presumptions without reliable evidence. It was the assessee's discretion whether to charge interest from close relatives, and there was no evidence of any interest being charged.

The Tribunal held that the issues regarding transport subsidy and sales tax rebate were covered by Supreme Court judgments in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not sustained.

The Tribunal held that the issues regarding transport subsidy and sales tax rebate were covered by Supreme Court judgments in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not sustained.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets a monetary limit for appeals. The dismissal was due to low tax effect and not on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances under Section 14A and Section 36(1)(iii), finding sufficient own funds and proper utilization of borrowed funds by the assessee. The disallowance on foreign travel expenses was also upheld. The assessee's cross-objections regarding the abandoned project and electricity penalty were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to assess the actual rent received by the assessee for the two houses, not the notional rent based on market value. This was due to a lack of evidence that the properties were lying vacant or that the assessee earned more than disclosed.

The Tribunal held that an assessee is entitled to 100% deduction for the first five years and only 25% (or 30% for companies) for the subsequent five years under Section 80-IC. Claiming 100% deduction for the entire ten years due to substantial expansion is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the issues regarding transport subsidy and sales tax rebate were covered by Supreme Court judgments in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not sustained.

The Tribunal held that the issues regarding transport subsidy and sales tax rebate were covered by Supreme Court judgments in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not sustained.

The Tribunal held that the issues regarding transport subsidy and sales tax rebate were covered by Supreme Court judgments in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not sustained.

The Tribunal held that the issues regarding transport subsidy and sales tax rebate were covered by Supreme Court judgments in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not sustained.

The Tribunal held that an assessee is entitled to 100% deduction only for the first five years. For the subsequent five years, the deduction is limited to 25% (or 30% for companies), even in cases of substantial expansion. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. M/s Classic Binding Industries was relied upon.

The ITAT held that additions made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act are not sustainable if no incriminating material was found during a search action, especially when the assessment for the relevant years had already been completed. The tribunal relied on various High Court decisions to support this.

The Tribunal held that the issues regarding transport subsidy and sales tax rebate were covered by Supreme Court judgments in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not sustained.

The Tribunal held that Unit-III was a separate and distinct unit, not a reconstruction of Unit-II, as it operated from a different location, had separate employees, clients, and investments. The lower authorities' denial of the claim was unjustified.