ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — November 2022

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonably explained the source of expenditure for agricultural operations from past savings. The AO had no justifiable basis to make additions under Section 69A. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 4,40,000/- was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonably explained the source of expenditure for agricultural operations from past savings. The AO had no justifiable basis to make additions under Section 69A. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 4,40,000/- was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO had thoroughly examined the claim for deduction under Section 54, including the construction of the new house and related expenses. The PCIT's conclusion of lack of inquiry was found to be unsubstantiated by the records.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT (Exemptions) and remanded the case back. The CIT (Exemptions) was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present its case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated uncertainties regarding the determination and collection of the revenue. Since the revenue was subsequently recognized in a later financial year after resolution and acceptance, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the payment of EDC charges to GMADA does not constitute a work or service contract under Section 194C. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such payments.

The Tribunal held that the payment of EDC charges to GMADA does not constitute a work or service contract under Section 194C. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on these payments.

The Tribunal held that the payment of EDC charges to GMADA does not constitute a work/service contract under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such payments.

The Tribunal held that the explanation regarding the possession of excess jewellery weighing 147 grams was reasonable, considering it belonged to the entire family and was acquired through customary practices. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the explanation regarding the possession of excess jewellery weighing 147 grams was reasonable, considering it belonged to the entire family and was acquired through customary practices. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the explanation regarding the possession of excess jewellery weighing 147 grams was reasonable, considering it belonged to the entire family and was acquired through customary practices. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries, which were duly replied to by the assessee. The PCIT's order was based on conjectures and failed to point out any specific error prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that while Section 80AC mandated filing the return by the due date for claiming deduction, the AO was only empowered to make such a disallowance under Section 143(1)(a) after the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021. Therefore, for AY 2018-19, the CPC lacked the jurisdiction to make the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT failed to demonstrate that the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries and the alleged shortcomings were procedural and did not impact the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the amount received was in the nature of interest taxable under Article 12 of the India-UK DTAA. Since tax was already deducted at source at the applicable rate, there was no tax sought to be evaded, and thus no basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(C).

The Tribunal held that the amount received was in the nature of interest taxable under Article 12 of the India-UK DTAA. Since tax was already deducted at source at the applicable rate, there was no tax sought to be evaded, and thus no basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(C).

The Tribunal held that the amount received was in the nature of interest taxable under Article 12 of the India-UK DTAA. Since tax was already deducted at source at the applicable rate, there was no tax sought to be evaded, and thus no basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(C).

The Tribunal held that the amount received was in the nature of interest taxable under Article 12 of the India-UK DTAA. Since tax was already deducted at source at the applicable rate, there was no tax sought to be evaded, and thus no basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(C).

The Tribunal held that the amount received was in the nature of interest taxable under Article 12 of the India-UK DTAA. Since tax was already deducted at source at the applicable rate, there was no tax sought to be evaded, and thus no basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(C).

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's findings regarding the cash receipt from M/s Gilco Exports Limited were justified due to lack of proper enquiry by the AO. However, regarding the sale of land, the Tribunal found that the AO had examined the issue, and the Pr. CIT failed to demonstrate how the assessee was ineligible for Section 54F exemption.

The Tribunal held that the amount received was in the nature of interest taxable under Article 12 of the India-UK DTAA. Since tax was already deducted at source at the applicable rate, there was no tax sought to be evaded, and thus no basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(C).

The Tribunal held that the utilization of funds deposited in the capital gains account scheme for purchasing a new property needs to be verified in the year the three-year period from the original asset's transfer expires, not in the year of transfer. Therefore, the PCIT's action under Section 263 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assured return received by the assessee was in the nature of interest on finances provided to the developer for property construction. It was taxable under the India-UK DTAA, and the assessee's claim of it being a capital receipt was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assured return received by the assessee was in the nature of interest on finances provided to the developer for property construction. It was taxable under the India-UK DTAA, and the assessee's claim of it being a capital receipt was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assured return received by the assessee was in the nature of interest on finances provided to the developer for property construction. It was taxable under the India-UK DTAA, and the assessee's claim of it being a capital receipt was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assured return received by the assessee was in the nature of interest income, taxable under the India-UK DTAA. The claim of the assessee that it was a capital receipt was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assured return received by the assessee was in the nature of interest on the finances provided for property construction. It was taxable under the India-UK DTAA, and the assessee's claim of it being a capital receipt was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assured return received by the assessee was in the nature of interest on finances provided to the developer for property construction. It was taxable under the India-UK DTAA, and the assessee's claim of it being a capital receipt was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly exercised his revisional jurisdiction under Section 263. The issue was not about the applicability of Section 115BBE but about applying the correct tax rate as per the amended law for the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal considered the application for withdrawal and the lack of objection from the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.