ITAT Chennai Judgments — August 2016

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified. Given the undisputed turnover and in-house production, the purchase of raw materials could not be disputed, even if not fully reflected in the books.

The Tribunal held that losses from other units cannot be set off against the profits of a Section 10A unit before computing the exemption. The CIT(Appeals) rightly followed the Tribunal's prior decision in a similar case.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's estimation of agricultural income from coconut trees was fair and above average yield. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' orders.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's estimation of agricultural income from coconut trees was fair and above average yield. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' orders.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's estimation of agricultural income from coconut trees was fair and above average yield. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' orders.

The Tribunal held that the rental income from the 'Olympia Tech Park', which provides infrastructure facilities for software development, should be classified as 'income from business'. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA.

The Tribunal held that the rental income from the 'Olympia Tech Park', which provides infrastructure facilities for software development, should be classified as 'income from business'. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA.

The Tribunal held that losses from other units cannot be set off against the profits of a Section 10A unit before computing the exemption. The CIT(Appeals) rightly followed the Tribunal's prior decision in a similar case.

The Tribunal held that losses from other units cannot be set off against the profits of a Section 10A unit before computing the exemption. The CIT(Appeals) rightly followed the Tribunal's prior decision in a similar case.

The Tribunal held that losses from other units cannot be set off against the profits of a Section 10A unit before computing the exemption. The CIT(Appeals) rightly followed the Tribunal's prior decision in a similar case.

The Tribunal held that the rental income from the 'Olympia Tech Park', which provides infrastructure facilities for software development, should be classified as 'income from business'. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation resulting in profit was directly related to export sales and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC. The CIT(Appeals) was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to compute the deduction without reducing these gains.

The Tribunal held that losses from other units cannot be set off against the profits of a Section 10A unit before computing the exemption. The CIT(Appeals) rightly followed the Tribunal's prior decision in a similar case.

The Tribunal found that the nature of the land and building (stock-in-trade vs. capital asset) needed to be ascertained based on the development agreement and other documents. In the absence of these, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the transfer to the Reserve Fund is an application of income, following its own previous decisions. Regarding ESOP expenditure, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the claim, citing High Court and Tribunal precedents.

The Tribunal held that the transfer to the Reserve Fund is an application of income, following its own previous decisions. Regarding ESOP expenditure, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the claim, citing High Court and Tribunal precedents.

The Tribunal held that the valuation for the current assessment year (2013-14) could not be based on the valuation from a previous year (2007-08) due to market fluctuations. The AO's use of the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method for valuation was deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal held that relying on statements recorded under Section 131 without furnishing copies to the assessee and providing an opportunity for cross-examination constitutes a gross violation of natural justice. It set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to consider the conflict between a High Court judgment and CBDT circulars. The High Court's judgment should prevail over administrative instructions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an adequate opportunity to explain the source of the deposit. Giving one more opportunity would promote the cause of justice and enable the Assessing Officer to compute the correct taxable income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10C) and that the omission to claim it in the original return should not lead to penalization. The Tribunal found that the assessee can bring such facts to the notice of the Assessing Officer for examination on merits.

The Tribunal held that the claim of an oversight in declaring income in an inappropriate column needs verification by the Assessing Officer. The orders of the authorities below were set aside, and the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the decision to file an appeal rests with the Commissioner and should consider audit objections. Since the Revenue could not ascertain the presence of audit objections even after six years, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the decision to file an appeal rests with the Commissioner and should consider audit objections. Since the Revenue could not ascertain the presence of audit objections even after six years, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that interest on unproven fixed deposits, which were previously treated as the assessee's own income and confirmed by higher courts, cannot be claimed as an expenditure. Furthermore, the shift from the mercantile to the cash accounting system was deemed not bonafide, and additions related to sticky loans were upheld.

The Tribunal held that interest on unproven fixed deposits, which were previously treated as the assessee's own income and confirmed by higher courts, cannot be claimed as an expenditure. Furthermore, the shift from the mercantile to the cash accounting system was deemed not bonafide, and additions related to sticky loans were upheld.

The Tribunal held that interest on unproven fixed deposits, which were previously treated as the assessee's own income and confirmed by higher courts, cannot be claimed as an expenditure. Furthermore, the shift from the mercantile to the cash accounting system was deemed not bonafide, and additions related to sticky loans were upheld.

The Tribunal held that interest on unproven fixed deposits, which were previously treated as the assessee's own income and confirmed by higher courts, cannot be claimed as an expenditure. Furthermore, the shift from the mercantile to the cash accounting system was deemed not bonafide, and additions related to sticky loans were upheld.

The Tribunal held that interest on unproven fixed deposits, which were previously treated as the assessee's own income and confirmed by higher courts, cannot be claimed as an expenditure. Furthermore, the shift from the mercantile to the cash accounting system was deemed not bonafide, and additions related to sticky loans were upheld.

The Tribunal held that interest on unproven fixed deposits, which were previously treated as the assessee's own income and confirmed by higher courts, cannot be claimed as an expenditure. Furthermore, the shift from the mercantile to the cash accounting system was deemed not bonafide, and additions related to sticky loans were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the decision to file an appeal rests with the Commissioner and should consider audit objections. Since the Revenue could not ascertain the presence of audit objections even after six years, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the source of funds for Shri Murugaiah was established by a previous ITAT order, the assessee's claim of receiving Rs. 40 lakhs from him had to be accepted. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was rightly deleted by the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid and that the amount received under the rehabilitation and settlement agreement was not part of the sale consideration for the agricultural land, thus taxable.

The Tribunal noted that similar transactions involving a fictitious Axis Bank account had been remitted back to the Assessing Officer in prior cases. The matter was therefore remitted back to the Assessing Officer to conduct further examination and provide the assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine relevant parties.

The Tribunal held that the expert opinion obtained by the assessee was not considered by the lower authorities and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue after taking expert opinion.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's shareholding pattern and the rationale for commercial expediency were not sufficiently established. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the claims regarding development expenses and payments to unauthorized occupants required further examination. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-evaluation.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue concerning the assessee's father was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to do the same for the assessee's case.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted new material, including agricultural land documents and VAO certificates, to support her claim of gifts from agricultural income. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present her case.

The Tribunal held that the decision to file an appeal rests with the Commissioner and should consider audit objections. Since the Revenue could not ascertain the presence of audit objections even after six years, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the downward adjustment made by the TPO on royalty payments was erroneous, especially when the assessee had applied the TNMM method. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the disallowance under Section 14A concerning investments in subsidiary companies, considering them as part of business expediency.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not properly adjudicate the disputed issue regarding the assessment year of the investments. The order was not a speaking order, necessitating a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court does not justify deviating from a binding High Court judgment. The CIT(A) correctly followed the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that the downward adjustment made by the TPO on royalty payments was erroneous, especially when the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) was applied. The Tribunal also remitted the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, considering investments in subsidiary companies.

The Tribunal held that the powers of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are co-terminus with those of the Assessing Officer, as per Section 251(1) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s direction to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer was within the provisions of law, particularly Section 55A of the Act, which allows the AO (and by extension, the CIT(A) in appeal) to refer the valuation of a capital asset to a Valuation Officer if they are of the opinion that the fair market value exceeds the claimed value or if it is otherwise necessary to do so. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had claimed the cost of acquisition based on a valuation report, and the AO had disputed it by relying on the Sub-Registrar's value and deeming the building value as Nil. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had exhaustively dealt with the provisions of law and the facts of the case, including the assessee's explanation and relevant judicial decisions. Therefore, the Tribunal was not inclined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the grounds of the Revenue. The operative direction was to uphold the CIT(A)'s order to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234C is automatically chargeable on the deferment of advance tax, irrespective of whether the return was filed under Section 139(1) or in response to a notice under Section 148. The interpretation that 'tax due on returned income' only applies to the original return was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court does not justify deviating from a binding High Court judgment. The CIT(A) correctly followed the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient time to utilize the funds from the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme, and any unutilized amount would be taxable in the year the limitation period expires. The penalty was deleted as the addition in assessment proceedings does not automatically lead to penalty.

The Tribunal held that the process of converting green leaves into black tea powder by the co-operative society falls under the 'marketing of agricultural produce' as per Section 80P(2)(a)(iii). The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and dismissed the revenue's appeal.