ITAT Chennai Judgments — February 2016

The Tribunal held that the delay was genuine and reasonable, considering the personal circumstances of the Authorized Representative. It also noted that the Transfer Pricing Officer made no upward adjustment to the arm's length price.

The Tribunal found that the manner of transfer of property to the partnership firm and the subsequent sale needed re-examination. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify if the property was indeed transferred and sold by the firm as business income.

The Tribunal held that carry forward of excess application of income is not permissible under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act. Funds applied from corpus, accumulated funds, or loans cannot be treated as application of income for exemption purposes in a subsequent year, as it would amount to double deduction.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not for non-deduction of tax but for the non-genuineness of the transaction. Since the assessee could not substantiate the payment, the CIT(Appeals) rightly rejected the claim.

The Tribunal held that the objects of the trust can be achieved over time and the assessee had proven its charitable nature by obtaining 12AA registration. Therefore, the rejection order was quashed.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the claim and genuineness of the transactions, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's severe health issues which prevented him from properly substantiating his claims. It found that the issues were not dealt with on merits by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that MAT credit should be allowed against the tax liability before levying surcharge and education cess, or alternatively, the MAT credit itself should include surcharge and education cess. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding reimbursement of expenses for insurance and bank guarantee, following a coordinate bench decision. However, the issue of professional tax deduction was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding reimbursement of expenses for insurance and bank guarantee, following a coordinate bench decision. However, the issue of professional tax deduction was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument of having substantial income and cash balance. However, considering the extent of cash accumulation, an opportunity for detailed explanation was deemed necessary.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding reimbursement of expenses for insurance and bank guarantee, following a coordinate bench decision. However, the issue of professional tax deduction was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification due to lack of evidence.