ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It deleted the penalty related to interest on delayed payments as the quantum addition was deleted by the High Court. The penalty for interest on FDRs was also deleted, considering it a bonafide belief and not concealment. However, the penalty for duty drawback was confirmed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It deleted the penalty related to interest on delayed payments as the quantum addition was deleted by the High Court. The penalty for interest on FDRs was also deleted, considering it a bonafide belief and not concealment. However, the penalty for duty drawback was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding interest on the Agricultural Credit Stabilization Fund was covered by its earlier decision and upheld the CIT(A)'s order on this point. For the provision for standard assets, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the matter considering various types of assets, treating this ground as partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the nature of the subsidy needs to be examined in light of the relevant government notification and the 'purpose test' laid down by the Supreme Court. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to re-examine the facts, consider the evidence produced by the assessee, and pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the discrepancies in the audit report were due to typographical errors and rectified by filing a revised report. It considered the lapse to be on the part of the auditor and falling within the exception of reasonable cause under Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the discrepancies in the audit report were due to typographical errors and rectified by filing a revised report. It considered the lapse to be on the part of the auditor and falling within the exception of reasonable cause under Section 273B.

The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, invoking the second proviso to Section 221(1), finding that the default was due to good and sufficient reasons. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on enhanced compensation is in the nature of compensation and not taxable interest. Therefore, it is exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given proper opportunity to present its case and furnish necessary details before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given proper opportunity to present its case and furnish necessary details before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the fuel losses were a regular occurrence in the business, accepted by the Department in prior years, and the AO's disallowance lacked cogent reasons. For renovation expenses, the Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case, treating them as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the fuel losses were a regular occurrence in the business, accepted by the Department in prior years, and the AO's disallowance lacked cogent reasons. For renovation expenses, the Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case, treating them as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the fuel losses were a regular occurrence in the business, accepted by the Department in prior years, and the AO's disallowance lacked cogent reasons. For renovation expenses, the Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case, treating them as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the fuel losses were a regular occurrence in the business, accepted by the Department in prior years, and the AO's disallowance lacked cogent reasons. For renovation expenses, the Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case, treating them as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the fuel losses were a regular occurrence in the business, accepted by the Department in prior years, and the AO's disallowance lacked cogent reasons. For renovation expenses, the Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case, treating them as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the fuel losses were a regular occurrence in the business, accepted by the Department in prior years, and the AO's disallowance lacked cogent reasons. For renovation expenses, the Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case, treating them as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the fuel losses were a regular occurrence in the business, accepted by the Department in prior years, and the AO's disallowance lacked cogent reasons. For renovation expenses, the Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case, treating them as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that while the accounting explanation for the difference was plausible, the TDS credited to the assessee's account constituted income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was partly deleted, but the TDS amount was to be treated as the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in applying the ITAT ruling to gifts from a stranger HUF. However, the CIT could not initiate proceedings under Section 263 for gifts from the assessee's own HUF, as it was not part of the reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the expression 'receive' in Section 56(2)(viib) implies actual receipt of consideration, not notional receipt. Since the cheques were not encashed, there was no actual receipt of funds by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free funds, the presumption is that these funds were used for investments. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly proved the receipt of cash as an advance against the sale of property, and there was no prohibition under Section 269SS for receiving such advances in cash during the relevant period. Therefore, the penalty levied was unjustified.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one opportunity to present its case, subject to prompt appearance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.