ITAT Chennai Judgments — October 2015

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not eligible for depreciation under Section 32 as the entire cost of capital expenditure was claimed as application of income under Section 11. However, the assessee remains eligible for exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that stake money paid to horse owners is not covered by Section 194B, following the Karnataka High Court judgment in Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. The amended provisions of Section 194B do not apply to horse racing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee purchased shares of a company, not its assets. The company, being a separate taxable entity, held the land. Therefore, the sale of shares should be treated as a capital gain from the sale of shares, not the underlying land.

The Tribunal found it irregular that the CIT(Appeals) passed an order on merits while the appeal was pending before the ITAT. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remitted the issues back for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee purchased shares of a company, not its assets. The company, being a separate taxable entity, held the land. Therefore, the sale of shares should be treated as a capital gain from the sale of shares, not the underlying land.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided crucial evidence regarding the availability of interest-free funds. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had offered adayam receipts in the revised return and explained the source of investment. However, this information was not presented to the Assessing Officer during the assessment. Therefore, the matter requires further examination.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted evidence of the source of funds and the transaction details. However, due to the need for further verification of the rectification entries and the genuineness of the transaction, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's absence and lack of communication, inferring a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Following precedent, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the addition made on a protective basis for capitation fees collected by the assessee was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as the same addition was sustained in the hands of the trust. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order in this regard.

The Tribunal held that the addition made on a protective basis for capitation fees collected by the assessee was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as the same addition was sustained in the hands of the trust. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order in this regard.

The Tribunal held that the addition made on a protective basis for capitation fees collected by the assessee was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as the same addition was sustained in the hands of the trust. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order in this regard.

The Tribunal held that the addition made on a protective basis for capitation fees collected by the assessee was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as the same addition was sustained in the hands of the trust. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order in this regard.

The Tribunal held that the addition made on a protective basis for capitation fees collected by the assessee was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as the same addition was sustained in the hands of the trust. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order in this regard.

The Tribunal held that the income from the Malaysian plantation was taxable only in Malaysia, following the Supreme Court's decision in PVRM Kulandayan Chettiar, as the closer economic ties determined the fiscal domicile in Malaysia. The Tribunal also found the reassessment proceedings invalid as the notice was issued beyond the four-year period without establishing the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of an appeal before the High Court does not warrant a contradictory view, especially when the High Court has not stayed the Tribunal's previous order. The CIT(Appeals)'s order was found to be in line with the Tribunal's prior decision.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of an appeal before the High Court does not warrant a contradictory view, especially when the High Court has not stayed the Tribunal's previous order. The CIT(Appeals)'s order was found to be in line with the Tribunal's prior decision.

The Tribunal held that the income from the Malaysian plantation was taxable only in Malaysia, following the Supreme Court's decision in PVRM Kulandayan Chettiar, as the closer economic ties determined the fiscal domicile in Malaysia. The Tribunal also found the reassessment proceedings invalid as the notice was issued beyond the four-year period without establishing the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.

The Tribunal found that the present appeal was a duplication of a previously filed appeal. As the previous appeal was already adjudicated, there was nothing left for adjudication in the current appeal.

The Tribunal held that in case of amalgamation falling under Section 2(1B), capital gains on transfer are exempt under Section 47(vi). Revaluation of an asset does not deny this exemption, and the AO's interpretation of Section 43(1) for business profits was incorrectly applied to capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the income from the Malaysian plantation was taxable only in Malaysia, following the Supreme Court's decision in PVRM Kulandayan Chettiar, as the closer economic ties determined the fiscal domicile in Malaysia. The Tribunal also found the reassessment proceedings invalid as the notice was issued beyond the four-year period without establishing the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.

The Tribunal held that the income from the Malaysian plantation was taxable only in Malaysia, following the Supreme Court's decision in PVRM Kulandayan Chettiar, as the closer economic ties determined the fiscal domicile in Malaysia. The Tribunal also found the reassessment proceedings invalid as the notice was issued beyond the four-year period without establishing the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.

The Tribunal held that since the former trustee had relinquished his position, the funds advanced to companies owned by his son and daughter-in-law did not constitute a violation of Section 13(1)(d). It also found that the constructed meditation hall was handed over to the trusts and property tax was assessed in their name, making them owners and the expenditure a valid application of income.

The Tribunal held that since the former trustee had relinquished his position, the funds advanced to companies owned by his son and daughter-in-law did not constitute a violation of Section 13(1)(d). It also found that the constructed meditation hall was handed over to the trusts and property tax was assessed in their name, making them owners and the expenditure a valid application of income.

The Tribunal held that since the former trustee had relinquished his position, the funds advanced to companies owned by his son and daughter-in-law did not constitute a violation of Section 13(1)(d). It also found that the constructed meditation hall was handed over to the trusts and property tax was assessed in their name, making them owners and the expenditure a valid application of income.

The Tribunal held that since the former trustee had relinquished his position, the funds advanced to companies owned by his son and daughter-in-law did not constitute a violation of Section 13(1)(d). It also found that the constructed meditation hall was handed over to the trusts and property tax was assessed in their name, making them owners and the expenditure a valid application of income.

The Tribunal held that since the former trustee had relinquished his position, the funds advanced to companies owned by his son and daughter-in-law did not constitute a violation of Section 13(1)(d). It also found that the constructed meditation hall was handed over to the trusts and property tax was assessed in their name, making them owners and the expenditure a valid application of income.

The Tribunal held that since the former trustee had relinquished his position, the funds advanced to companies owned by his son and daughter-in-law did not constitute a violation of Section 13(1)(d). It also found that the constructed meditation hall was handed over to the trusts and property tax was assessed in their name, making them owners and the expenditure a valid application of income.

The Tribunal held that since the former trustee had relinquished his position, the funds advanced to companies owned by his son and daughter-in-law did not constitute a violation of Section 13(1)(d). It also found that the constructed meditation hall was handed over to the trusts and property tax was assessed in their name, making them owners and the expenditure a valid application of income.

The Tribunal held that since the former trustee had relinquished his position, the funds advanced to companies owned by his son and daughter-in-law did not constitute a violation of Section 13(1)(d). It also found that the constructed meditation hall was handed over to the trusts and property tax was assessed in their name, making them owners and the expenditure a valid application of income.

The Tribunal held that since the former trustee had relinquished his position, the funds advanced to companies owned by his son and daughter-in-law did not constitute a violation of Section 13(1)(d). It also found that the constructed meditation hall was handed over to the trusts and property tax was assessed in their name, making them owners and the expenditure a valid application of income.

The Tribunal held that since the former trustee had relinquished his position, the funds advanced to companies owned by his son and daughter-in-law did not constitute a violation of Section 13(1)(d). It also found that the constructed meditation hall was handed over to the trusts and property tax was assessed in their name, making them owners and the expenditure a valid application of income.