ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — October 2019

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by its earlier order in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Following the precedent, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the issue was not properly examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the rectification order passed by the AO was illegal and void due to double addition of the same amount. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted as its basis ceased to exist.

The Tribunal held that since the vehicles were registered in the company's name and the perquisite for the director's car use was already added to their individual income, the disallowance on account of maintenance or personal use was not warranted.

The ITAT held that the appeal filed by the Department was not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department before the ITAT. The appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The tribunal held that the assessee did not furnish inaccurate particulars or conceal income, as the nature of his civil contracting work made it difficult to produce all bills and vouchers. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was ordered to be deleted.

The tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case, and the CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that additions under section 153A are only permissible if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found and the original assessment was concluded, the additions were unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not warranted as the amount was meager and could be out of the assessee's past savings and self-earned income from tuitions. The assessee had also regularly filed income-tax returns.

The Tribunal held that additions under section 153A are only permissible if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found and the original assessment was concluded, the additions were unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim was not bonafide and that the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing proportionate interest expenditure and initiating penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect as per CBDT circulars. The assessee's cross-objection regarding the agreement to sell was partly allowed, deleting the addition. The assessee's appeal concerning stock difference was allowed, deleting the addition.

The Tribunal held that the payment received was indeed a retiral benefit towards commuted pension, even though the assessee continued employment. Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is in the nature of compensation and is not taxable as interest income. It is considered an accretion to the value of the land.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal found that the assessee society, though mistakenly, made a claim for depreciation on the building as suggested by its Consultant Accountant. This claim was considered a bonafide claim. The Tribunal observed that there was no attempt on the part of the assessee to furnish inaccurate particulars of income, conceal its income, or evade payment of income tax. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the case was not fit for the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty levied by the lower authorities was ordered to be deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect as per CBDT circulars. The assessee's cross-objection regarding the agreement to sell was partly allowed, deleting the addition. The assessee's appeal concerning stock difference was allowed, deleting the addition.

The tribunal held that the assessee did not furnish inaccurate particulars or conceal income, as the nature of his civil contracting work made it difficult to produce all bills and vouchers. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to properly present its case and furnish necessary evidence to the CIT(E). The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal restored the issues of foreign tour expenses and household expenses back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following a previous order. The disallowance of salary was deleted as the AO had accepted the books of accounts which showed payments to four employees.

The Tribunal held that the liability to pay interest had not accrued or crystallized in the prior years. The formal communication for charging interest was received in the financial year relevant to AY 2013-14, and the full liability crystallized in AY 2014-15.

The Tribunal held that the liability to pay interest had not accrued or crystallized in the prior years. The formal communication for charging interest was received in the financial year relevant to AY 2013-14, and the full liability crystallized in AY 2014-15.

The Tribunal held that when the substantial question of law regarding the quantum addition is pending before the High Court, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable. The issue was set aside to the AO to be decided after the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided a reasonable and appropriate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated, and the case was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that when the substantial question of law regarding the quantum addition is pending before the High Court, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable. The issue was set aside to the AO to be decided after the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is in the nature of compensation and is exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided a reasonable and appropriate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated, and the case was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the assessee's contentions regarding PAN availability, subsequent submission of forms, and proper opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had properly examined the facts and figures of the case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the assessee's contention that no borrowed funds were used for capital investment and that the observation regarding the use of cash credit limit was incorrect.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh hearing. The assessee was directed to participate in the proceedings and the CIT(A) was instructed to pass a speaking order after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the Apex Court's decision in Classic Binding Industries was reconsidered in Aarham Softronics, clarifying that substantial expansion can lead to 100% deduction. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not heard and the CIT(A)'s order was not speaking. The matter was set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that a mistake apparent on record had occurred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of low tax effect, as the High Court had remanded the matter for adjudication on specific issues. The previous order was recalled.