ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — January 2019

The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed disclosed the mechanism of fund transfer and that the interest earned was from advances made to Milkfed, which qualified as an investment under Section 80P(2)(d). The denial of deduction by the lower authorities was therefore set aside.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are consequential to additions made in quantum proceedings. Since the assessments were quashed, the penalty orders cannot survive and are therefore dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are consequential to additions made in quantum proceedings. Since the assessments were quashed, the penalty orders cannot survive and are therefore dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that if the addition on which a penalty is levied is deleted, the penalty has no basis and must be cancelled. Therefore, the impugned penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the AO himself stated the assessee did not maintain books of account. Since the issue of maintaining books was pending before the CIT(A), the Tribunal remanded the penalty appeals for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the AO himself stated the assessee did not maintain books of account. Since the issue of maintaining books was pending before the CIT(A), the Tribunal remanded the penalty appeals for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the AO himself stated the assessee did not maintain books of account. Since the issue of maintaining books was pending before the CIT(A), the Tribunal remanded the penalty appeals for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the AO himself stated the assessee did not maintain books of account. Since the issue of maintaining books was pending before the CIT(A), the Tribunal remanded the penalty appeals for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the AO himself stated the assessee did not maintain books of account, and the issue of maintenance was not controverted by the DR. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the AO himself stated the assessee did not maintain books of account. Since the issue of maintaining books was pending before the CIT(A), the Tribunal remanded the penalty appeals for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that there was no evidence of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. The addition was made on estimation due to a lack of evidence, but the assessee's explanations were not disproved.

The Tribunal found that the matter needed a fresh examination by the Assessing Officer. The assessee's pleas regarding business expediency and use of own funds were to be examined.

The Tribunal held that an assessee is entitled to 100% deduction for the first five years and only 25% for the subsequent five years under Section 80-IC, even in cases of substantial expansion. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. M/s Classic Binding Industries was relied upon.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence was crucial for adjudicating the issue and that the CIT(A) erred in not allowing its filing. The matter was therefore remanded back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) which restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned. This decision was based on a previous order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) which restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned. This decision was based on a previous order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal held that while the quantum addition was upheld by the High Court, the assessee had a bonafide belief that the interest income was doubtful. Therefore, it was not a case of intentional concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's instruction to withdraw the appeal. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-appearance and lack of compliance. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is not taxable, following Supreme Court and Tribunal precedents. However, the nature of the interest (under Section 28 or 34) needed further examination.

The Tribunal held that interest income from customers and suppliers was correctly treated as business income, aligning with previous tribunal decisions. Reimbursements under the TUFS scheme were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income from customers and suppliers was correctly treated as business income, aligning with previous tribunal decisions. Reimbursements under the TUFS scheme were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income from customers and suppliers was correctly treated as business income, aligning with previous tribunal decisions. Reimbursements under the TUFS scheme were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income from customers and suppliers was correctly treated as business income, aligning with previous tribunal decisions. Reimbursements under the TUFS scheme were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-appearance and lack of compliance. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that interest income from customers and suppliers was correctly treated as business income, aligning with previous tribunal decisions. Reimbursements under the TUFS scheme were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income from customers and suppliers was correctly treated as business income, aligning with previous tribunal decisions. Reimbursements under the TUFS scheme were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income from customers and suppliers was correctly treated as business income, aligning with previous tribunal decisions. Reimbursements under the TUFS scheme were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income from customers and suppliers was correctly treated as business income, aligning with previous tribunal decisions. Reimbursements under the TUFS scheme were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income from customers and suppliers was correctly treated as business income, aligning with previous tribunal decisions. Reimbursements under the TUFS scheme were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income from customers and suppliers was correctly treated as business income, aligning with previous tribunal decisions. Reimbursements under the TUFS scheme were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following various judicial precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal found that the tax authorities had not exercised their powers properly by failing to investigate the purchasers of the land, despite having their PAN details. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal based on the low tax effect, as admitted by the Revenue's counsel and in line with CBDT circulars and High Court precedents. The dismissal does not affirm the CIT(A)'s order on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's order was erroneous. It relied on a Supreme Court judgment that affirmed the proposition that interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is to be treated as compensation.

The Tribunal held that if no tax-exempt income is earned, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessee will be allowed to set off expenditure against interest income if a direct nexus between the interest earned and expenditure incurred can be established.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) as the assessee had provided sufficient reasons for not accessing the e-mail intimations. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IC is to be calculated on a standalone basis for each eligible undertaking, without netting profits and losses of different units. The restriction on the deduction percentage was also decided against the assessee based on Supreme Court precedent.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO's additions were based on presumptions without direct evidence. The Tribunal agreed that the weighted average cost method was appropriate for valuing stock given the variety of cloths purchased and sold.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest on advances is not warranted if the advances are made from sufficient own interest-free funds. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned, and no disallowance is permissible if no exempt income is earned.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income is earned in the assessment year. Therefore, the deletion of disallowance by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income is earned in the assessment year. Therefore, the deletion of disallowance by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IC is to be calculated on a standalone basis for each eligible undertaking, without netting profits and losses of different units. The restriction on the deduction percentage was also decided against the assessee based on Supreme Court precedent.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IC is to be calculated on a standalone basis for each eligible undertaking, without netting profits and losses of different units. The restriction on the deduction percentage was also decided against the assessee based on Supreme Court precedent.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be filed and pending appeals should be withdrawn or not pressed. Therefore, the Revenue should not have filed the instant appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 lakhs, was applicable. The circular also instructed the department to withdraw or not press appeals filed before the ITAT where the tax effect is less than Rs. 20 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not record any satisfaction regarding the penalty proceedings under Section 271D in the assessment order. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal held that interest received on compulsory acquisition of land under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is in the nature of compensation and not taxable under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act. The compensation itself was exempt under Section 10(37).