ITAT Chennai Judgments — December 2015

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of distributing printing work among its members was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi). This decision was based on previous orders of the Tribunal and the High Court in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that share issue expenses incurred for expansion of business operations qualify for amortization under Section 35D of the Act. The CIT(A) had overlooked earlier orders and relied solely on precedent without considering the facts.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) rightly treated the profit as capital gain, relying on evidence of cultivation and official records. The cross-objections regarding reopening were not adjudicated as the appeals were decided on merit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) rightly treated the profit on sale of land as capital gain, considering the land as agricultural and supported by official documents. The cross-objections regarding reopening were not adjudicated as the main appeals were decided on merit.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 instructs withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below ₹10 lakhs. Following this circular, the Tribunal held that the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB as they only developed the residential portion of the joint venture. It also confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s restricted disallowance under Section 14A, finding no reason to interfere.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is bound to record reasons for allowing or disallowing a claim, even if it's a deduction. The absence of such reasoning renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that merely claiming an expenditure which is later not accepted or withdrawn by the assessee does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The assessee had furnished all particulars in the original return.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) rightly treated the profit on sale of land as capital gain, considering the land as agricultural and supported by official documents. The cross-objections regarding reopening were not adjudicated as the main appeals were decided on merit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) rightly treated the profit on sale of land as capital gain, considering the land as agricultural and supported by official documents. The cross-objections regarding reopening were not adjudicated as the main appeals were decided on merit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) rightly treated the profit on sale of land as capital gain, considering the land as agricultural and supported by official documents. The cross-objections regarding reopening were not adjudicated as the main appeals were decided on merit.

The Tribunal held that share issue expenses incurred for expansion of business operations qualify for amortization under Section 35D of the Act. The CIT(A) had overlooked earlier orders and relied solely on precedent without considering the facts.

The Tribunal held that share issue expenses incurred for expansion of business operations qualify for amortization under Section 35D of the Act. The CIT(A) had overlooked earlier orders and relied solely on precedent without considering the facts.

The Tribunal held that a Container Freight Station (CFS) qualifies as an 'inland port' and thus an 'infrastructure facility' under Section 80IA(4). The Tribunal also found that the assessee had complied with the conditions for claiming the deduction, including obtaining necessary approvals from the government.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court does not warrant a different view. The High Court judgment is binding on lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the explanations provided for the delay were not convincing and indicated gross negligence on the part of the institution. Following precedent, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay were not convincing and indicated gross negligence on the part of the institution. Following precedent, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay.

The Tribunal found that the AO made additions based on suspicion and surmises without proper verification. The CIT(A) also did not properly examine the genuineness of the donations. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court does not justify deviating from a binding High Court judgment. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in following the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court does not justify deviating from a binding High Court judgment. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in following the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was genuine and had an indirect benefit to the company, satisfying the test of commercial expediency. The lower authorities had ignored this test.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court does not justify deviating from a binding High Court judgment. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in following the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court does not justify deviating from a binding High Court judgment. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in following the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was genuine and had an indirect benefit to the company, satisfying the test of commercial expediency. The lower authorities had ignored this test.

The Tribunal held that the valuation report categorizing the jewellery from Rs. 255 to Rs. 635 per gram should be considered. A uniform rate of Rs. 955 per gram adopted by the Assessing Officer was not justified, and the CIT(Appeals)'s valuation was reasonable.

The Tribunal held that disallowance for interest payment was not justified as Form 15H was filed before the due date for TDS deposit. However, interest on borrowed funds for a new windmill was not deductible until the asset was put to use. The gratuity fund contribution was allowed as the assessee had no control over the funds.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee acknowledged the liability in its balance sheet, the period of limitation for the share applicants to recover the money was extended. Therefore, the outstanding share application money could not be treated as income of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to the Assessing Officer's failure to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment when requested by the assessee. For the subsequent year, the Tribunal found no suppression of stock and directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to the Assessing Officer's failure to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment when requested by the assessee. For the subsequent year, the Tribunal found no suppression of stock and directed the deletion of the addition.