ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — December 2018

The Tribunal restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to 5% of the total tax-exempt earned income. It also directed the inclusion of interest from customers, insurance claims, and processing charges in eligible income for Section 80IC deduction, while excluding profit on raw material sale.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court, the resultant penalty has no basis. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue has no merit.

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The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to file a cross-objection if required against the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue did not oppose this. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in similar group cases. It held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the bye-products of paddy given to millers for milling.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in similar group cases. It held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the bye-products of paddy given to millers for milling.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. No exceptions were brought to the notice of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal followed its previous decision in similar group cases. It held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the bye-products of paddy given to millers for milling.

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's cross-objections. Specific disallowances under Section 40A(3) were confirmed for unproven business expediency, while others were deleted. The addition under Section 68 was upheld. The disallowance on foreign travel was confirmed, but the proportionate interest on advances was deleted.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income has been earned by the assessee during the year. This decision was based on the admitted fact that the assessee earned no exempt income and relied on various judicial precedents.

The tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative, and the payees having accounted for the income and paid taxes, no disallowance was warranted. This was supported by jurisdictional High Court decisions.