ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — April 2019

The Tribunal held that the agricultural land outside the municipal area is not a capital asset as per Section 2(14) of the Act. Since the addition itself was not sustainable, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was void ab initio because the Assessing Officer passed the order before obtaining the mandatory prior approval from the Additional CIT as required by Section 274(2). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that if the closing balance of the preceding year was accepted as genuine, there was no reason to doubt the opening balance for the current year. The Tribunal also noted that the AO acted solely on information received without applying his own mind, making the reassessment proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied if the additions on which it is based have been deleted. Since the quantum additions were deleted by the ITAT, the penalty had no basis and was rightly deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that if the quantum additions on which a penalty is levied are deleted, the penalty cannot survive. The penalty is not leviable when the basis for it has been removed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without clearly indicating if the delay was pointed out and without adjudicating on the merits. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Rule 8D are applicable to pending proceedings and directed the AO to re-calculate the disallowance under Section 14A based on investments yielding exempt income. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding capitalization of interest, finding sufficient interest-free funds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s observation regarding the due date of filing the return was incorrect. Since the assessee filed the return within the due date and declared the surrendered income, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the ₹14 crores surrendered did not fall within the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per section 271AAB, as it was based on debatable disallowances and no incriminating material was found. However, a penalty of 10% was upheld on ₹39.99 lacs surrendered on account of profit on stock found short during the search.

The Tribunal found that the disallowance on account of personal use of car, telephone, and travel expenses was excessive. It reduced the addition to Rs. 50,000 to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was void ab initio because the Assessing Officer passed it before obtaining the mandatory prior approval from the Additional CIT as required by Section 274(2). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing him to examine the availability of own/interest-free funds against capital work in progress and advances in light of Supreme Court decisions. For other expenses, the disallowances were deleted.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing him to examine the availability of own/interest-free funds against capital work in progress and advances in light of Supreme Court decisions. For other expenses, the disallowances were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was void ab initio because the Assessing Officer passed it before obtaining the mandatory prior approval from the Additional CIT as required by Section 274(2). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition after the assessee provided evidence, including bank statements and confirmations, to prove the source of funds in the hands of Shri Anubhav Aggarwal. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s factual findings.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A and the levy of fee under Section 234E were effective from 1.6.2015. Since the returns were filed and TDS was deposited prior to this date, the mistake was apparent from the record and rectifiable under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that in case of substantial expansion, the year of expansion becomes the initial assessment year, entitling the assessee to 100% deduction as per the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Aarham Softronics.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A and the levy of fee under Section 234E were effective from 1.6.2015. Since the returns were filed and TDS was deposited prior to this date, the mistake was apparent from the record and rectifiable under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A and the levy of fee under Section 234E were effective from 1.6.2015. Since the returns were filed and TDS was deposited prior to this date, the mistake was apparent from the record and rectifiable under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A and the levy of fee under Section 234E were effective from 1.6.2015. Since the returns were filed and TDS was deposited prior to this date, the mistake was apparent from the record and rectifiable under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A and the levy of fee under Section 234E were effective from 1.6.2015. Since the returns were filed and TDS was deposited prior to this date, the mistake was apparent from the record and rectifiable under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that the year of substantial expansion becomes the initial assessment year, entitling the assessee to 100% deduction of eligible profits for that period, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Aarham Softronics.

The Tribunal held that the year of substantial expansion becomes the initial assessment year, entitling the assessee to 100% deduction of eligible profits for that period, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Aarham Softronics.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing TDS returns was a technical or venial breach, not an intentional defiance of the law. Since the TDS was deducted and deposited on time, causing no loss to the revenue, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to 100% deduction on eligible profits in case of substantial expansion, as per the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Aarham Softronics. The previous year of substantial expansion becomes the initial assessment year for this purpose.

The Tribunal held that the year of substantial expansion becomes the initial assessment year, entitling the assessee to 100% deduction of eligible profits for that period, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Aarham Softronics.

The Tribunal held that gifts from the husband, who was a regular income tax assessee, were not to be doubted. It also found the assessee's past savings to be justified. The contributions from the father and father-in-law were partially accepted.

The Tribunal held that the non-availability of PAN numbers constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing TDS returns, as per Section 273B of the Act. The Tribunal found the Revenue's arguments unconvincing and similar to previous cases where penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the necessary satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's disallowance basis, as per previous ITAT decisions. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 14A was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the necessary satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's disallowance basis, as per previous ITAT decisions. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 14A was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee possessed sufficient own funds and no new loans were taken for capital work in progress, the notional interest could not be disallowed. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was deleted.