ITAT Chennai Judgments — February 2016

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

The Tribunal held that the replacement of barbed wire fencing with a compound wall was revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. It also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the reopening of assessment.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court does not warrant deviating from a binding High Court judgment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court is not a reason to deviate from a binding High Court judgment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the fine paid to NSCCL, treating it as compensatory and allowable business expenditure. For software expenses, the Tribunal followed its earlier decision, partly allowing the ground. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal remanded the issue for fresh verification based on judicial precedents.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly dealt with the reassessment issue. However, regarding the sales tax disallowance, the Tribunal felt the matter needed re-examination to verify if the payments related to the assessment year and were made before the due date.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to the assessee's bonafide belief in pursuing a Section 154 rectification petition, which was rejected by the AO. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is applicable only to rural advances, following the Supreme Court's decision in Catholic Syrian Bank. Provisions for non-rural debts are not allowable as a deduction under this section.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is allowable as it falls under 'any other business or commercial rights of similar nature'. However, depreciation on infrastructure development charges paid to SIPCOT was disallowed as the assessee was not the owner of the developed facilities.

The Tribunal decided that the lab analysis fees paid to non-residents were not taxable in India as technical services and remitted the issue to the AO for verification. The appeals related to transfer pricing adjustments for royalty and price variations were either dismissed or partly allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning royalty and price variation adjustments, finding that the CIT(A)'s decision was reasonable. However, the issue of lab analysis fees was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while no direct expenditure or interest was incurred, the third limb of Rule 8D(2) is applicable. Therefore, 0.5% of the average investment value should be considered as expenditure for earning tax-free income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's appeal and dismissed it as withdrawn. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to a low tax effect, following a CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for acquiring rights in films and serials should be allowed as revenue expenditure, following its own prior decisions. Regarding Section 14A, it was held that no disallowance could be made as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover its investments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) has a statutory responsibility to decide appeals on merit, irrespective of the assessee's appearance. Dismissing for non-prosecution without considering the merits was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for expansion of an existing business, even for a new unit, should be considered revenue expenditure due to the interconnection of management, financial, and administrative aspects. The lower authorities had not examined the details of the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred on acquiring rights to telecast films and serials should be treated as revenue expenditure, following its own prior decisions. Regarding Section 14A, it was held that no disallowance is warranted when the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds to cover investments, and investments in sister concerns are for commercial expediency.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is allowable as it falls under 'any other business or commercial rights of similar nature'. However, depreciation on infrastructure development charges paid to SIPCOT was disallowed as the assessee was not the owner of the developed facilities.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is allowable as it falls under 'any other business or commercial rights of similar nature'. However, depreciation on infrastructure development charges paid to SIPCOT was disallowed as the assessee was not the owner of the developed facilities.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue authorities were precluded from filing the appeal as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as un-admitted.

The Tribunal held that reimbursement expenditure not forming part of export turnover should also not form part of total turnover. The pendency of an appeal before the High Court was not a sufficient ground to deviate from the Special Bench's decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee commenced production within the stipulated time and that 'medallion' is essentially a type of 'pendant' in common parlance, thus not violating the SEZ approval. The purity of gold also did not alter the character of the product.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in accepting the actual receipt as the full value of consideration without basis, especially concerning the valuation of shares. While the assessee sold shares to another director for a determined consideration, the AO's calculation of intrinsic value based on audited accounts as of 31.03.2011 (₹12.35) was considered realistic and supported by the Audited Annual Report. However, the AO's further addition based on unaudited figures as of 15.09.2011 was deemed unrealistic and unaudited. The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the intrinsic value of the share determined as on 31.03.2011 at ₹12.35, supported by the Audited Annual Report, to calculate long-term capital gains. The AO was also instructed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and decide the issue on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is allowable as it falls under 'any other business or commercial rights of similar nature'. However, depreciation on infrastructure development charges paid to SIPCOT was disallowed as the assessee was not the owner of the developed facilities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee commenced production within the stipulated time and that 'medallion' is essentially a type of 'pendant' in common parlance, thus not violating the SEZ approval. The purity of gold also did not alter the character of the product.

The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred on acquiring rights to telecast films and serials should be treated as revenue expenditure, following its own prior decisions. Regarding Section 14A, it was held that no disallowance is warranted when the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds to cover investments, and investments in sister concerns are for commercial expediency.

The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred on acquiring rights to telecast films and serials should be treated as revenue expenditure, following its own prior decisions. Regarding Section 14A, it was held that no disallowance is warranted when the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds to cover investments, and investments in sister concerns are for commercial expediency.

The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred on acquiring rights to telecast films and serials should be treated as revenue expenditure, following its own prior decisions. Regarding Section 14A, it was held that no disallowance is warranted when the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds to cover investments, and investments in sister concerns are for commercial expediency.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding royalty and price variation adjustments, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly directed the AO to treat royalty at 0.75% and that adjustments for price variations were not warranted. The assessee's appeal concerning lab analysis fees was partly allowed, remitting the issue back to the AO for further verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's appeal and dismissed it as withdrawn. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to a low tax effect, following a CBDT circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding royalty and price variation adjustments, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly directed the AO to treat royalty at 0.75% and that adjustments for price variations were not warranted. The assessee's appeal concerning lab analysis fees was partly allowed, remitting the issue back to the AO for further verification.

The Tribunal held that the period of holding for capital gains purposes should be calculated from the original date of acquisition, regardless of whether the asset was initially stock-in-trade. Therefore, the profit on sale should be treated as long-term capital gain.

The Tribunal found that the estimation of income at 12% of gross sales was unsustainable given the financial difficulties of the assessee and the slump in the real estate market. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the income at 8% of gross sales.

The Tribunal held that the balance 50% of additional depreciation, which could not be claimed in the year of installation due to usage for less than 180 days, is allowable in the subsequent assessment year. This decision was based on various High Court and Tribunal rulings.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment under Section 147 was justified, even though a previous assessment was made under Section 153C. The Tribunal also confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of the sale of the bus along with the route permit, considering the mercantile system of accounting.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and violating principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, considering the expenditure as a regular practice in the business and noting that the Department had accepted a 15% disallowance in earlier years. The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal on this ground.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 instructs to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs. The Tribunal held that this circular is binding on the Department.

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 Revenue cannot proceed with these appeals.

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 Revenue cannot proceed with these appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that income from activities other than industrial undertaking, such as trading, should be excluded when computing eligible deductions under Section 80IA. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the technical knowledge, expertise, and know-how provided by Foster Wheeler USA were made available to the assessee, enabling them to implement it in future projects. Therefore, the payments constituted fee for technical services, and tax deduction at source was mandatory.

The Tribunal is considering the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer had determined the fair market value based on the guideline value provided by the Registration Department.

The Tribunal held that the technical knowledge, expertise, and know-how provided by Foster Wheeler USA were made available to the assessee, enabling them to implement it in future projects. Therefore, the payments constituted fee for technical services, and tax deduction at source was mandatory.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as un-admitted.

The Tribunal held that despite the initial approval for a residential house, the first assessment by the Municipality was as a marriage hall. Therefore, it was concluded that the building was constructed as a marriage hall, not a residential house.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have independently verified the genuineness of the creditors by issuing summons, as the assessee had provided their details. Since this exercise was not done, the matter was remitted back for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the profit from the sale of agricultural land is indeed agricultural income and thus exempt from tax. Furthermore, it ruled that such agricultural income should be reduced from book profit when computing income under Section 115JB of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the profit from the sale of agricultural land is indeed agricultural income and thus exempt from tax. Furthermore, it ruled that such agricultural income should be reduced from book profit when computing income under Section 115JB of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of an SLP before the Apex Court is not a reason to disregard a binding High Court judgment. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was confirmed.