ITAT Chennai Judgments — July 2015

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the assessee's eligibility for privileges under Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) based on their statement under Section 132(4). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that a provision made for an approved gratuity fund is an allowable expenditure under Section 40A(7)(b) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) rightly allowed the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the assessee's eligibility for privileges under Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) based on their statement during the search. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that a provision made for an approved gratuity fund is an allowable expenditure under Section 40A(7)(b) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) rightly allowed the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the assessee's eligibility for privileges under Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) based on their statement under Section 132(4). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) rightly restricted the interest disallowance based on available interest-free funds and verified transactions for cash credits. The addition for hotel renovation was also deleted as the assessee's share of unaccounted income from a firm exceeded the investment.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the assessee's eligibility for privileges under Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) based on their statement under Section 132(4). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the assessee's eligibility for privileges under Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) based on their statement under Section 132(4). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the assessee's eligibility for privileges under Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) based on their statement under Section 132(4). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the sale deed clearly indicated a consideration of Rs. 30 lakhs paid by the assessee, and without a rectification deed, the recitals in the sale deed must be taken as correct. The assessee failed to provide any evidence for the claimed sale proceeds or availability of funds.

The Tribunal held that educating the children/grandchildren of Directors is the personal liability of the parents/grandparents and does not serve any business purpose for the company. Therefore, the expenditure was not allowable as a business expense.