ITAT Chennai Judgments — August 2016

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had passed a cryptic order without properly adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee and considering the voluminous information provided. The order was inconsistent with Transfer Pricing provisions and principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to verify specific aspects of the societies' operations, such as loans to non-members and dealings with traders, to determine eligibility for the deduction.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to verify specific aspects of the societies' operations, such as loans to non-members and dealings with traders, to determine eligibility for the deduction.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to verify specific aspects of the societies' operations, such as loans to non-members and dealings with traders, to determine eligibility for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that for lorry freight expenses, the AO should examine the applicability of Section 194C(6) and collect PAN of lorry owners. For fuel expenses, the Tribunal found that cash payments to small farmers were justified under Rule 6DD and set aside the addition.

The Tribunal held that the legal fees paid for protecting the assessee's registered software were a legitimate business expenditure. It also held that the professional indemnity insurance premium, even if legally an obligation of the UK firm, was allowable as part of the overall legal fees paid by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the claim, as the agents operated outside India. The pendency of a revenue appeal before the High Court against a similar order does not justify not following the Tribunal's binding precedent.

The Tribunal, in accordance with Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, dismissed both appeals for non-prosecution. The assessee can seek recall of the order if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown.

The Tribunal, in accordance with Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, dismissed both appeals for non-prosecution. The assessee can seek recall of the order if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown.

The Tribunal found that the penalty order was passed before the Tribunal's order on the quantum appeal was available. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no occasion to consider the Tribunal's decision. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the cash and assets were received as part of a family settlement, which was previously adjudicated by the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed that the properties, including company shares, were to be treated as joint family property.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that uniform allowance, academic research allowance, and uniform making allowance are specifically granted to meet expenses incurred in performing official duties and are therefore exempt under Section 10(14) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the compensation paid to the husband for demolishing the building was not justified as there was no prior agreement and the assessee allowed construction without rent. However, since the assessee was the owner of the land and lived in the building with her husband, she was entitled to deduction under Section 54 for the transfer of land and building.

The Tribunal held that merely because an appeal is pending before the High Court does not warrant keeping the current appeal pending, especially since no stay was granted and no petition under Section 158A was filed. The Assessing Officer had followed the directions from the revision order.

The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A and remitted the issue of short-term capital gains on forfeiture of warrants back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. The Tribunal also held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added while computing book profit under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT circular regarding tax effect, the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's absence and inferred a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Following precedent, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that for undisclosed income computed as a result of a search operation conducted on or after 01.06.2007, penalty must be levied under Section 271AAA. Section 271AAA(3) prohibits penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for such income.

The Tribunal held that the Sabha's activities, including promoting traditional music and conducting music programs, were not in the nature of trade, commerce, or business. Sponsorship fees and music coaching fees were considered part of its charitable objects, not commercial ventures. The sale of tickets also generated receipts below the threshold specified in the proviso to Section 2(15).

The Tribunal held that rental income from an IT Park with specialized facilities should be treated as business income, allowing the Section 80-IA deduction. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance as the assessee failed to provide sufficient details to exclude investments yielding taxable income.

The Tribunal held that the matter of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) needed re-examination by the Assessing Officer due to new submissions. The Revenue's appeal against the deletion of addition for short deduction of TDS was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that additional depreciation is a one-time benefit and, if not fully utilized in the year of acquisition due to the 180-day rule, the balance can be claimed in the subsequent year. The Tribunal also confirmed the allowability of higher depreciation on UPS and ICD monitors as part of the computer system and treated development charges for common amenities as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that for undisclosed income computed as a result of a search operation conducted on or after 01.06.2007, penalty must be levied under Section 271AAA. Section 271AAA(3) prohibits penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for such income.

The Tribunal held that for undisclosed income computed as a result of a search operation conducted on or after 01.06.2007, penalty must be levied under Section 271AAA. Section 271AAA(3) prohibits penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for such income.

The Tribunal held that for undisclosed income computed as a result of a search operation conducted on or after 01.06.2007, penalty must be levied under Section 271AAA. Section 271AAA(3) prohibits penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for such income.

The Tribunal held that for undisclosed income computed as a result of a search operation conducted on or after 01.06.2007, penalty must be levied under Section 271AAA. Section 271AAA(3) prohibits penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for such income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's payment towards his own share of the property redeemed from the bank loan cannot be considered an investment for exemption under Section 54. Only the amount paid to acquire his brother's share could be considered an investment.

The Tribunal held that for undisclosed income computed as a result of a search operation conducted on or after 01.06.2007, penalty must be levied under Section 271AAA. Section 271AAA(3) prohibits penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for such income.

The Tribunal held that the matter of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) needed re-examination by the Assessing Officer due to new submissions. The Revenue's appeal against the deletion of addition for short deduction of TDS was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that rental income from an IT Park with specialized facilities should be treated as business income, allowing the Section 80-IA deduction. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance as the assessee failed to provide sufficient details to exclude investments yielding taxable income.

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