ITAT Chennai Judgments — February 2015

The Tribunal held that the reduction of agricultural income was based on estimates and presumptions by the AO, not on concrete evidence disproving the assessee's claims. Therefore, the penalty for concealment of income was not justified.

The Tribunal held that while the vendors' initial statements lost significance due to retraction, the assessees' substantial agricultural income could not be denied as a source for the deposits. It was also noted that the assessees might have utilized regular income and past savings.

The Tribunal held that the commission payments to overseas agents for procuring export orders did not constitute 'fee for technical services' and were not taxable in India. Therefore, the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case in the interest of natural justice. Consequently, the ex parte orders were set aside.

The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the ex parte orders passed by the CIT(Appeals). The matters were restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed giving these vehicles on hire to third parties, as evidenced by TDS certificates. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the higher rate of depreciation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of natural justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(Appeals), subject to payment of costs.

The CIT(Appeals) erred by accepting the alternative claim without examination or confronting it to the Assessing Officer. The matter requires fresh examination by the CIT(Appeals) after considering the AO's views.

The CIT(Appeals) erred by accepting the alternative claim without examination or confronting it to the Assessing Officer. The matter requires fresh examination by the CIT(Appeals) after considering the AO's views.

The Tribunal held that if the gross receipts are considered, corresponding expenses should be allowed as deduction. The AO's rejection solely for not routing reimbursements through P&L was incorrect.

The CIT(Appeals) erred by accepting the alternative claim without examination and without confronting it to the Assessing Officer. The matter requires fresh examination by the CIT(Appeals) after considering the AO's views.