ITAT Chennai Judgments — March 2016

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 234B was prospective and the Assessing Officer's attempt to rectify a 'mistake' by increasing the interest liability while giving effect to the ITAT order was not in order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the deduction under Section 80IB by considering units independently and deleting the disallowance of foreign commission by relying on a co-ordinate bench decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the process of cutting, chipping, and polishing granite blocks into monuments resulted in a new and distinct product with a separate identity and usage. Therefore, the activity qualified as 'manufacture' for the purpose of Section 10B deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on both grounds. Regarding the denial of deduction under Section 10A, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had dealt with the issue in detail, considering the provisions and judicial decisions. The Tribunal was not inclined to interfere with the Commissioner's order on this ground and dismissed the assessee's appeal on this issue. Concerning the ground of limitation under Section 153, the Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the assessment order was passed after March 31, 2013. The Commissioner (Appeals) had examined the issue elaborately with judicial decisions and found no long delay in serving the order. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order and dismissed this ground of appeal. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital for advances to group concerns was not warranted, following earlier decisions. However, it ruled that Section 10A deduction should be allowed only after setting off losses from domestic operations against export profits.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the Managing Director's detention and other genuine reasons. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee filed a revised return rectifying bonafide errors and the entire income disclosed therein was accepted by the Assessing Officer without further additions, it was not a fit case for penalty.

The Tribunal held that investments in sister concerns for commercial expediency do not warrant disallowance under Section 14A. Regarding transfer pricing, it found the selected comparable (Lucas TVS) unsuitable and directed the ALP to be determined based on transactions with non-associate enterprises.

The Tribunal dismissed two appeals for lack of maintainability. For the third appeal, it upheld the deletion of addition for rice purchase, remitted the issue of cash deposit for re-examination, and confirmed the deletion of addition for loans/advances.

The Tribunal held that the third limb of Rule 8D(2), allowing 0.5% of average investment as expenditure, should be applied. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under the second limb was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate with documentary evidence that the land was agricultural and fell outside specified urban limits. Therefore, the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of being a 'State' and thus not a 'Person' under Section 2(31) was devoid of merit. However, it found that an additional ground regarding Section 80P(2)(c)(i) for public distribution system income was not decided by the CIT(A) and remitted it back.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the negative cash balance was due to bank withdrawals for payments to agriculturists and that purchases made through regulated markets were genuine, making disallowances unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of being a 'State' and thus not a 'Person' under Section 2(31) was devoid of merit. However, it found that an additional ground regarding Section 80P(2)(c)(i) for public distribution system income was not decided by the CIT(A) and remitted it back.

The Tribunal dismissed two appeals for lack of maintainability. For the third appeal, it upheld the deletion of addition for rice purchase, remitted the issue of cash deposit for re-examination, and confirmed the deletion of addition for loans/advances.

The Tribunal dismissed two appeals for lack of maintainability. For the third appeal, it upheld the deletion of addition for rice purchase, remitted the issue of cash deposit for re-examination, and confirmed the deletion of addition for loans/advances.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are not automatic and require more than just an addition to income. Considering the assessee's voluntary surrender, payment of taxes, and cooperation, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal found that the documents seized during the survey, which pertained to the jewellery business, were not clearly attributable to the assessee's individual proprietorship. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of being a 'State' and thus not a 'Person' under Section 2(31) was devoid of merit. However, it found that an additional ground regarding Section 80P(2)(c)(i) for public distribution system income was not decided by the CIT(A) and remitted it back.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee's severe health problems, coupled with business and personal issues affecting his auditor, constituted reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return was substantial and there was no reasonable cause preventing the assessee from filing on time. Consequently, the denial of deduction under Section 80IA was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to properly consider Section 244A(2) of the Act regarding the exclusion of delay attributable to the assessee when granting interest on refund. Therefore, the CIT's order to set aside the AO's rectification order for verification was upheld.

The Tribunal held that advance fees received by an advocate for future services cannot be treated as income for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition, subject to verification that the advance fees are offered as income in subsequent years.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's severe health problems, coupled with business and personal issues affecting his auditor, constituted reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. It followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, which had allowed these claims.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court does not warrant a different view. The High Court's judgment is binding, and the CIT(A) correctly followed it.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed the particulars of the sale of agricultural land in a footnote in his return. Since no new material was unearthed by the department and the assessee had made a bonafide belief, the penalty was not legally sustainable.

The Tribunal held that associate members are included in the definition of 'members' as per the State Co-operative Societies Act, and therefore, the cooperative societies are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that associate members are included in the definition of 'members' as per the State Co-operative Societies Act, and therefore, the cooperative societies are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's non-appearance and Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee can apply for recall if sufficient cause is shown.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's absence indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeals. Following precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine.

The Tribunal held that the assessee society is engaged in providing credit facilities to its members and its activities are not on par with commercial banks. Following co-ordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's absence indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeals. Following precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine.

The Tribunal held that while Section 14A is applicable, the disallowance should be restricted to 2% of the exempted income. Regarding the directors' flats, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, finding the allotment at a lower rate compared to outsiders improper.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to reopen the assessment as it was not a case of change of opinion. It also ruled that the windmill subsidy should not be reduced from the actual cost for depreciation computation, following the Apex Court's judgment. However, the issue of machinery replacement cost was remitted back for reconsideration in light of Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 153C was invalid because the AO failed to record the mandatory satisfaction in the searched person's records. Additionally, several additions made by the AO were deleted due to lack of proper evidence or justification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on lorry hire charges as he was not providing any sub-contract. The primary contractor was liable for TDS under Section 194C. Section 194-I was also not applicable for the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not in order as the income was already offered to tax by the payees. Fresh evidence submitted in appeal was rejected for procedural reasons.

The Tribunal held that the matter needs verification to determine if the assessee had sufficient surplus funds for the loan or if it was funded by borrowed money. The lower authorities' orders were set aside for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 153C was invalid because the AO failed to record the mandatory satisfaction in the searched person's records. Additionally, several additions made by the AO were deleted due to lack of proper evidence or justification.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 153C was invalid because the AO failed to record the mandatory satisfaction in the searched person's records. Additionally, several additions made by the AO were deleted due to lack of proper evidence or justification.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 153C was invalid because the AO failed to record the mandatory satisfaction in the searched person's records. Additionally, several additions made by the AO were deleted due to lack of proper evidence or justification.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 153C was invalid because the AO failed to record the mandatory satisfaction in the searched person's records. Additionally, several additions made by the AO were deleted due to lack of proper evidence or justification.

The Tribunal held that for the Assessment Year 2011-12, Section 54 did not contain any restriction that the new residential property must be purchased within India. It noted that the amendment introducing such a restriction was prospective from AY 2015-16.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer was denied an opportunity to examine fresh evidence submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter of depreciation on WTGs was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made an application to the CBDT for condonation of delay. Considering the factual aspects and the pending application, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must consider only expenditure directly related to earning exempt income for disallowance under Section 14A. The expenditure on debenture premium did not have a direct nexus with the dividend income.