ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — February 2019

The Tribunal held that substantial expansion undertaken by an eligible unit can lead to a new 'initial assessment year', entitling the assessee to 100% deduction again for the remaining period of the overall 10-year limit. The order of the CIT(A) allowing the deduction was upheld.

The Tribunal held that income surrendered on account of sundry creditors, advances from customers, and gross profit on sales out of books is business income, allowing set off of losses. Income from investment and miscellaneous discrepancies was treated as deemed income, but set off of losses was still allowed as the amendment to section 115BBE was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge late filing fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge late filing fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal held that prior period expenses, when consistently claimed and allowed in the past, should not be disallowed. It also found that interest expenses should not be capitalized as there were no borrowed funds used for work-in-progress.

The Tribunal held that following the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Aarham Softronics, a substantial expansion can lead to a new initial assessment year, entitling the assessee to 100% deduction for the subsequent period, up to a total of 10 years.

The Tribunal held that if the additions forming the basis of a penalty are deleted, the penalty cannot survive. Following the Supreme Court's decision in K.C. Builders, the penalty is liable to be cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge late filing fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal held that prior period expenses, when consistently claimed and allowed in the past, should not be disallowed. It also found that interest expenses should not be capitalized as there were no borrowed funds used for work-in-progress.

The ITAT set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals back to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done to grant the assessee an effective opportunity of being heard, as they were not heard previously.

The Tribunal held that interest received from partners can be netted against interest paid to partners and remanded the matter for verification. For additions under Section 68, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, while denying Section 80IC deduction on capital introduced.

The Tribunal found it in the interest of justice to grant the assessee an opportunity to present its case. The ex-parte orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case.

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

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not record satisfaction regarding the assessee's suo motu disallowance and that the assessee did not use interest-bearing funds for investments. Therefore, no further disallowance beyond what the assessee offered is warranted.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee and set aside the issue of the addition under Section 68 to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The issue of disallowing loss set-off was also remanded to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the amended Rule 8D is applicable prospectively and restored the assessee's issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the delay of only four days in obtaining the tax audit report, with a plausible explanation, warranted a liberal approach. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal held that development activities by improvement trusts fall under objects of general public utility. While the quantum of income from such activities is subject to assessment, registration cannot be cancelled on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the amended Rule 8D is applicable prospectively and restored the assessee's issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant. This decision was based on established legal precedents where appeals were dismissed due to the appellant's absence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in deleting the addition for interest expenditure as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. It also confirmed the restriction of Section 14A disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned.

The Tribunal found that the fact of whether the tax audit report was e-filed within the specified time limit required verification. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal directed that the Gross Profit rate be estimated at 3% of the turnover for both assessment years. For the addition towards capital introduction, the matter was restored to the AO for verification of the assessee's contentions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's plausible explanation of a change of address and the fact that subsequent returns were filed from the new address. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's plausible explanation of a change of address and the fact that subsequent returns were filed from the new address. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal directed that the Gross Profit rate be estimated at 3% of the turnover for both assessment years. For the addition towards capital introduction, the matter was restored to the AO for verification of the assessee's contentions.

The Tribunal held that a farmhouse can be considered a residential house for the purpose of Section 54F. The purchase deed clearly indicated approval for farmhouse construction, and the assessee fulfilled other conditions for the exemption.

The Tribunal noted that an identical issue for the preceding assessment year was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. Following that precedent, the current appeal was also set aside to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of notice, especially since the assessee was out of India during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the case was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was bad in law as it did not specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following a precedent, the tribunal deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be held responsible for non-deduction or delayed deposit of TDS as no payment was made to beneficiaries until the court's final order. The deposit was made promptly after receiving funds and court directions.

The Tribunal held that not every addition to income amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Since the assessee had made the transfer pricing study in good faith and the additions were substantially reduced, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties. The AO had made additions based on the assessee's failure to produce bills and vouchers for construction. The assessee's counsel contended that all bills and vouchers were maintained and the funds were utilized for land purchase and building construction. As the claims of both parties were contradictory and the facts were not clear on record, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to set aside the case back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to adjudicate the matter afresh after providing a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The exemption in respect of the sum spent on land acquisition (Rs. 1,58,10,200/-) was granted by the AO, but exemption for the balance amount (Rs. 28,25,638/-) was declined. The Tribunal's decision is to allow the appeal for statistical purposes, implying a fresh examination of the disputed amount is required.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by restoring the issue of insurance claim to the AO for verification and also restored the issue of incidental expenditure on bank interest to the AO for fresh examination. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the grounds of short-term capital gains and depreciation disallowance. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's submissions and evidence.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by restoring the issue of insurance claim to the AO for verification and also restored the issue of incidental expenditure on bank interest to the AO for fresh examination. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that it was unclear whether the corrected figures submitted to the Service Tax Department were accepted and if there was a discrepancy between the service tax return and the audit report. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal followed its previous order in the assessee's own case for the preceding assessment year, which relied on High Court decisions. The deletion of the addition was upheld as the payees had accounted for the sums and paid taxes.

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not adequately discussed the reasons for rejecting the condonation of delay. Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's explanation for the delay.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not adequately discussed the reasons for rejecting the condonation of delay. Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the additional evidence sought to be produced by the assessee was crucial for a just decision and therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause shown by the assessee. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was precluded by law from objecting to the AO's jurisdiction as the objections were raised beyond the prescribed time limit. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the explanation offered, though unsubstantiated, was not found to be false, and the assessee was deceased during assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with the issue of cash credits and commission being remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. Other grounds were decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with the issue of cash credits and commission being remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. Other grounds were decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs was made without any cogent basis and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as the assessee was not afforded an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements formed the basis of the addition. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the issue of taxing capital gains on land transferred through a Joint Development Agreement was debatable. Therefore, it was not a case of concealment of income, and the penalty was deleted. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices was also deleted due to reasonable cause (assessee residing abroad).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause shown by the assessee. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.