ITAT Chennai Judgments — January 2016

The Tribunal held that the assessee's treatment of the cash collateral was incorrect and not supported by accounting standards, constituting a false claim and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for not considering Rule 8D for Section 14A disallowance. Therefore, the CIT's order invoking Section 263 was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as it failed to consider the provisions of Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A. Therefore, the CIT's order invoking Section 263 was upheld.

The Tribunal held that pre-operative expenses incurred for obtaining IRDA licenses should be allowed as revenue expenditure. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on the composite value of the flat, excluding refundable deposits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) overlooked vital documents and submissions, and failed to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding entertainment expenses. It allowed the appeal concerning FBT on superannuation fund contribution, setting aside the addition. The appeal related to special reserve was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that once the assessee agreed to the disallowance in writing during assessment, they had no right to appeal. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order based on the jurisdictional High Court's precedent.

The Tribunal held that dividend income, being exempt under Section 10(35), cannot be taxed or considered for the application of funds for the trust's activities. The amendment to Section 11(7) was not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the Form 10CCB, though submitted in the appellate stage, should be considered duly signed and its contents need verification. Technicalities should be ignored for substantial justice.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court is not a reason to deviate from a binding High Court judgment. The CIT(A) rightly followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision.

The Tribunal decided that the disallowance under Section 14A should be re-verified by the Assessing Officer in light of the amended Rule 8D and the principle that disallowance cannot exceed exempted income. The depreciation claim was upheld as per the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that making a claim based on bogus transactions and forged documents, and then withdrawing it, constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly confirmed.

The Tribunal held that advances made by a company to a shareholder's proprietary concern for purchasing gold jewellery were business transactions and not loans or advances, thus Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable. Regarding commission paid, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance to 20%. For exemption under Section 10, the Tribunal allowed conveyance and uniform allowance but disallowed travelling allowance.

The Tribunal held that advances made by a company to a shareholder's proprietary concern for purchasing gold jewellery were business transactions and not loans or advances, thus Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable. Regarding commission paid, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance to 20%. For exemption under Section 10, the Tribunal allowed conveyance and uniform allowance but disallowed travelling allowance.

The Tribunal held that advances made by a company to a shareholder's proprietary concern for purchasing gold jewellery were business transactions and not loans or advances, thus Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable. Regarding commission paid, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance to 20%. For exemption under Section 10, the Tribunal allowed conveyance and uniform allowance but disallowed travelling allowance.

The Tribunal held that advances made by a company to a shareholder's proprietary concern for purchasing gold jewellery were business transactions and not loans or advances, thus Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable. Regarding commission paid, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance to 20%. For exemption under Section 10, the Tribunal allowed conveyance and uniform allowance but disallowed travelling allowance.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of an appeal before the Apex Court does not negate the binding nature of the Madras High Court's judgment on subordinate authorities. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) was correct in following the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that advances made by a company to a shareholder's proprietary concern for purchasing gold jewellery were business transactions and not loans or advances, thus Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable. Regarding commission paid, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance to 20%. For exemption under Section 10, the Tribunal allowed conveyance and uniform allowance but disallowed travelling allowance.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of ₹10,00,000 prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to disallow 2% of exempt income as expenditure under Section 14A. However, it upheld the disallowance of setting off SEZ losses against normal business income.

The Tribunal held that a provision for contribution to an approved superannuation fund, paid in the subsequent financial year, is not subject to Fringe Benefit Tax. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that additional evidence was submitted before the CIT(A) without proper opportunity for the Assessing Officer to examine it. Therefore, both issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which instructs to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below ₹10 lakhs, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court does not prevent it from following the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) order was rightly passed.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner erred in revising the Assessing Officer's order. It emphasized that the jurisdictional High Court's judgment is binding, and the mere pendency of an SLP does not justify ignoring it.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The CIT(Appeals) is empowered to enhance assessment and must decide on merit after examining the material, even if the assessee fails to appear.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to additional depreciation on the windmill as the electricity generated was used for captive consumption in its manufacturing business. The Tribunal relied on the Madras High Court's judgment in CIT v. VTM Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the debit balance as on March 31, 2008, pertained to the assessment year 2008-09 and could not be assessed in the assessment year 2009-10. Consent for addition in the wrong year does not grant jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court does not prevent it from following the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) order was rightly passed.

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