ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — December 2019

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were deleted by the Supreme Court, the penalty was not sustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was ordered to be deleted.

The tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 54 for the purchase of the plot, as the non-construction was due to reasons beyond his control. For the cost of acquisition and improvement, the tribunal directed a revised estimation.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were deleted by the Supreme Court, the penalty was not sustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's legal grounds regarding the validity of reopening the assessment. However, for the merits of the case concerning TDS on freight payments and interest calculation, the Tribunal found that factual examination was required.

The Tribunal held that the land was agricultural land and situated more than 10 km from municipal limits, thus exempt from capital gains tax. The reopening of assessment was also found to be without proper justification.

The Tribunal held that for Section 2(22)(e) to apply, the recipient of the loan must be a shareholder of the lending company. Since the assessee company was not a shareholder of M/s Punjab Metallic Pvt. Ltd., the provision was not applicable.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not clearly appreciated the facts regarding the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, both issues concerning outstanding liabilities and sundry creditors were set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Rs. 40 lacs cash was duly accounted for in the company's books as an imprest and was given to a third party for property purchase, thus the addition was not sustainable. The Tribunal also allowed deduction under Section 80IB on the surrendered amount of Rs. 195 lacs as it pertained to the assessee's housing project business.

The Tribunal held that the disclosed amount fell within the definition of undisclosed income under section 271AAB. However, it found that the assessee had made efforts to pay the tax and directed the AO to levy the minimum penalty of 10% on the undisclosed income.

The Tribunal decided the issue of prior period expenses in favour of the assessee, following a previous order. The issue of income from other sources was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication. The issue of non-payment of CPF/GPF was also set aside to the AO due to a non-speaking order from the CIT(A) and lack of clear facts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including maintaining and preserving historical places, providing facilities for tourists/pilgrims, celebrating Geeta Jayanti, and maintaining the Krishna Museum, were commensurate with its aims and objects and did not involve any activity in the nature of trade, commerce, or business. The Tribunal found that the activities undertaken by the assessee were unlike those undertaken by M/s Jammu Development Authority. The Tribunal reasoned that museums are akin to temples of learning and impart knowledge to the world at large, and charging fees or receiving state funds does not make them commercial ventures. Similarly, disseminating knowledge through a Light and Sound show about the philosophy of Gita cannot be treated as a commercial exercise, even if it is entertaining or available to the illiterate. The Tribunal emphasized that education need not be solely through books and that audio-visual media are powerful tools for disseminating knowledge. The Tribunal concluded that in the absence of any fact, instance, or example on record to show that the trust's activities were commercial ventures, there was no good reason to vary the CIT(A)'s conclusion. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal decided the issue of prior period expenses in favour of the assessee, following a previous order. The issue of income from other sources was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication. The issue of non-payment of CPF/GPF was also set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication due to non-speaking orders from lower authorities.