ITAT Chennai Judgments — June 2016

The Tribunal held that it is the assessee's responsibility to inform the Registry of any address change. Since the assessee did not appear and was not reachable, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that it is the assessee's responsibility to inform the Registry of any address change. Since the assessee did not appear and was not reachable, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It followed a coordinate bench decision that computer software falls under 'plant' and is eligible for 60% depreciation.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's analogy of using partner's current account balance to justify investments from own funds was not realistic. The assessee also failed to substantiate the investments with a cash flow statement and bank account nexus.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the material on record. The core issue revolved around the calculation of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.

The Tribunal held that the royalty payments were revenue expenditure, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The pendency of an appeal before the High Court did not warrant a different view.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order allowing proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) based on its own prior ruling. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 40A(2), noting the Revenue's acceptance of similar orders in prior years.

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 Revenue. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal could not proceed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the entire expenditure, as the assessee had declared sales. The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of rent and professional charges due to non-deduction of TDS. Penalty for contravention of law was also disallowed. The disallowance of discarded assets was remanded for reconsideration. Financial expenses were partly confirmed and partly disallowed.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence. The assessee can seek recall of the order if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown.

The Tribunal held that Section 10B deduction is to be reckoned on a standalone basis for the income of the undertaking alone, without reference to other units. The deduction is to be calculated prior to setting off unabsorbed business losses and depreciation.

The Tribunal held that Section 10B deduction is to be reckoned on a standalone basis for the income of the undertaking alone, without reference to other units. The deduction is to be calculated prior to setting off unabsorbed business losses and depreciation.

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)'s order allowing the deduction was upheld.

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)'s order allowing the deduction was upheld.

The Tribunal held that advancing interest-free loans to Associate Enterprises abroad, when the assessee also borrowed funds and paid interest in India, was a method to reduce tax burden. Therefore, notional interest at LIBOR rate on these advances was justified.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not examined all applicants and the flow of funds from the assessee-company. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the TPO failed to identify comparable uncontrolled transactions before making an estimation for transfer pricing adjustment. Without such comparison, the TPO's conclusion about the disproportionality of services and payment was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence of services rendered by the parent company, confirming the disallowance of service charges. Regarding royalty payments, the Tribunal found that the payment was for the right to use technology for a prescribed period, not for acquiring enduring benefit, and thus was revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence of services rendered by the parent company, confirming the disallowance of service charges. Regarding royalty payments, the Tribunal found that the payment was for the right to use technology for a prescribed period, not for acquiring enduring benefit, and thus was revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal found that crucial information regarding the availability of liquid cash and the shareholding pattern was missing. Therefore, both the disallowance of interest and the chit loss were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the loan received by the assessee from the subsidiary company cannot be treated as deemed dividend in his hands. This is because the assessee was not a shareholder of the subsidiary company from which the loan was received.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence of services rendered by the parent company, confirming the disallowance of service charges. Regarding royalty payments, the Tribunal found that the payment was for the right to use technology for a prescribed period, not for acquiring enduring benefit, and thus was revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was set aside and remitted, the penalty levied at that stage was not sustainable. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to 'unearned income' and 'networking and communication costs' by relying on previous orders in the assessee's own case. However, the issue of whether the sale of IP/VPN business constituted a slump sale or business income was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was deprived of adequate opportunity to present their case and submit evidence. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate on merits after providing a proper hearing.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's absence and lack of interest in pursuing the appeal, dismissed the appeal in limine, citing previous judgments. The assessee can file a petition to recall the order if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by denying the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present clarifications. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to 'unearned income' and 'networking and communication costs' by relying on previous orders in the assessee's own case. However, the issue of whether the sale of IP/VPN business constituted a slump sale or business income was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to 'unearned income' and 'networking and communication costs' by relying on previous orders in the assessee's own case. However, the issue of whether the sale of IP/VPN business constituted a slump sale or business income was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the sale of windmills and land did not constitute a slump sale as the entire undertaking was not transferred. The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Depreciation on UPS was allowed at 60%.

The Tribunal held that the sale of windmills and land did not constitute a slump sale as the entire undertaking was not transferred. The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Depreciation on UPS was allowed at 60%.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to examine the impounded documents. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for verification of the assessee's claim regarding the 'on-money' payment.

The Tribunal held that assessment under Section 153A is not permissible without incriminating material found during search, especially when regular assessment was already completed. It also held that accumulated drawings from a partnership firm for common family expenses, kept at the assessee's residence, cannot be added as income.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee systematically provided and maintained amenities like security and common area maintenance, a portion of the rental income should be treated as business income. It followed the Supreme Court's decision that the nature of the assessee's activities is the deciding factor.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee systematically provided and maintained amenities like security and common area maintenance, a portion of the rental income should be treated as business income. It followed the Supreme Court's decision that the nature of the assessee's activities is the deciding factor.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee systematically provided and maintained amenities like security and common area maintenance, a portion of the rental income should be treated as business income. It followed the Supreme Court's decision that the nature of the assessee's activities is the deciding factor.

The Tribunal held that the stock discrepancy addition was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer could not verify the claims due to deficiencies in the inventory process. The renovation and repair expenses on the leased building were also held to be revenue expenditure as they could not be retrieved after the lease expired.

The Tribunal held that the stock discrepancy addition was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer could not verify the claims due to deficiencies in the inventory process. The renovation and repair expenses on the leased building were also held to be revenue expenditure as they could not be retrieved after the lease expired.

The Tribunal held that the stock discrepancy addition was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer could not verify the claims due to deficiencies in the inventory process. The renovation and repair expenses on the leased building were also held to be revenue expenditure as they could not be retrieved after the lease expired.

The Tribunal held that the stock discrepancy addition was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer could not verify the claims due to deficiencies in the inventory process. The renovation and repair expenses on the leased building were also held to be revenue expenditure as they could not be retrieved after the lease expired.

The Tribunal found that the assessee suffered a loss on the transaction, not capital gains. Since the quantum addition was deleted, there was no concealment of income, and thus no justification for penalty.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with a copy of the letter from the charitable institution. The matter was remanded for reconsideration after furnishing the letter and providing the assessee an opportunity to respond.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee systematically provided and maintained amenities like security and common area maintenance, a portion of the rental income should be treated as business income. It followed the Supreme Court's decision that the nature of the assessee's activities is the deciding factor.

The Tribunal held that the assessee violated the statutory provision by investing funds in the equity shares of a company outside India, contrary to the modes prescribed under Section 11(5) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to approval under Section 10(23C)(vi).

The Tribunal held that assessment under Section 153A is not permissible without incriminating material found during search, especially when regular assessment was already completed. It also held that accumulated drawings from a partnership firm for common family expenses, kept at the assessee's residence, cannot be added as income.

The Tribunal held that assessment under Section 153A is not permissible without incriminating material found during search, especially when regular assessment was already completed. It also held that accumulated drawings from a partnership firm for common family expenses, kept at the assessee's residence, cannot be added as income.

The Tribunal held that assessment under Section 153A is not permissible without incriminating material found during search, especially when regular assessment was already completed. It also held that accumulated drawings from a partnership firm for common family expenses, kept at the assessee's residence, cannot be added as income.