ITAT Chennai Judgments — October 2016

The Tribunal held that while the transaction was in cash and violated Section 269SS, the assessee had a reasonable cause under Section 273B. The penalty was not warranted due to the specific circumstances of the transaction between family members and the inability of the husband to directly fund the company.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause due to conflicting findings on the property's nature in wealth-tax proceedings. The matter was then remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that while the depreciation schedule showed no depreciation claimed on land for the windmill, a detailed verification was necessary to ascertain if the 'wind electric generator' amount included any land value. Therefore, the matter was set aside.

The Tribunal held that making a statutory claim, even if disallowed by the Assessing Officer, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied.

The Tribunal held that the unabsorbed depreciation, by virtue of the substituted Section 32(2) of the Act, could be treated as part of current depreciation and set off against other heads of income. Therefore, there was no mistake apparent from the record to justify rectification under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not brought all the necessary facts on record, specifically regarding the shareholding pattern of the companies in which the assessee made investments. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the validity of re-opening of assessment can be raised at the appellate stage, even if not raised before lower authorities, as it goes to the root of jurisdiction. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the issue of validity of re-opening was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence (agreement) without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to controvert it. The matter of commission payment was remitted back to the AO. Regarding PF/ESI contributions, the Tribunal noted that if paid before the return filing due date, no disallowance should be made, and this aspect was also remitted to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence (agreement) without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to controvert it. The matter of commission payment was remitted back to the AO. Regarding PF/ESI contributions, the Tribunal noted that if paid before the return filing due date, no disallowance should be made, and this aspect was also remitted to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence (agreement) without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to controvert it. The matter of commission payment was remitted back to the AO. Regarding PF/ESI contributions, the Tribunal noted that if paid before the return filing due date, no disallowance should be made, and this aspect was also remitted to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years where no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of search, additions could not be made without incriminating material. For assessment years where proceedings were pending, the Tribunal found that the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding expenses and gifts were not justified due to lack of material evidence.

The Tribunal held that payments made to companies were not covered by the DTAA and confirmed the disallowance for those amounts. However, payments made to individuals were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination in light of Article 14 of the DTAA.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to unforeseen circumstances. It held that the authorities below were not justified in estimating gross profit and turnover without furnishing copies of impounded documents to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not dispose of the appeal in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal, granting the assessee one last chance to appear and present its case.

The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Act is a special enactment and Section 43B allows deduction on actual payment. Following the Madras High Court's decision, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the claim as the payment was made within the due date for filing the return of income.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years where no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of search, additions could not be made without incriminating material. For assessment years where proceedings were pending, the Tribunal found that the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding expenses and gifts were not justified due to lack of material evidence.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years where no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of search, additions could not be made without incriminating material. For assessment years where proceedings were pending, the Tribunal found that the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding expenses and gifts were not justified due to lack of material evidence.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years where no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of search, additions could not be made without incriminating material. For assessment years where proceedings were pending, the Tribunal found that the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding expenses and gifts were not justified due to lack of material evidence.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years where no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of search, additions could not be made without incriminating material. For assessment years where proceedings were pending, the Tribunal found that the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding expenses and gifts were not justified due to lack of material evidence.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years where no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of search, additions could not be made without incriminating material. For assessment years where proceedings were pending, the Tribunal found that the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding expenses and gifts were not justified due to lack of material evidence.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years where no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of search, additions could not be made without incriminating material. For assessment years where proceedings were pending, the Tribunal found that the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding expenses and gifts were not justified due to lack of material evidence.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C is applicable only to sub-contracts, not to the simple hiring of vehicles for business purposes. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source on these hire charges.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of a prescribed form or procedure, claiming depreciation in the audited statement filed with the return constitutes exercising the option. The CIT(Appeals) was justified in allowing the claim.

The Tribunal held that the mere pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court does not justify not following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment. The CIT(Appeals) had rightly allowed the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal as withdrawn and should have decided it on merits. The CIT(A) also erred in allowing a claim under Section 154 without proper verification and opportunity to the AO.

The Tribunal held that depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act is only applicable to assets used for business or profession. Since the assessees were not engaged in business and the assets were used for charitable objects, they were not eligible for depreciation.

The Tribunal held that depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act is only applicable to assets used for business or profession. Since the assessees were not engaged in business and the assets were used for charitable objects, depreciation was not allowable.

The Tribunal found no material to support the claim that the investment was in subsidiary companies for business purposes. Therefore, the issue of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D needed re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the addition of peak credit based on the assessee's agreement for peace with the department does not automatically imply concealment of income. It was also noted that an individual can maintain a personal bank account not reflected in business books.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay, considering the assessee's explanation and the merits of the case. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide it on merits.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s decision on the employees' contribution issue. However, for the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not properly consider Rule 8D and remitted the matter back for reconsideration.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the foreign exchange derivative loss was a normal business loss and should be allowed. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding a deduction claimed under Section 80IA, following High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's power to consider new claims is restricted, appellate authorities are not bound by such restrictions. Therefore, the Assessing Officer can consider the allowability of the prior period expenditure.

The Tribunal held that investments in subsidiaries should be excluded when calculating disallowance under Rule 8D, following its own previous decision. It also noted that disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) requires specific conditions to be met and that the total disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the classification of land in revenue records is of prime importance and that the nature of adjacent lands or the buyer's intent are not grounds to doubt the agricultural nature of the land sold. The land was considered a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is mandatory if dividend income is earned and claimed as exempt, and the assessee failed to provide details of investments yielding taxable income. For the second issue, the Tribunal found that services were rendered in India, making tax deduction mandatory.

The Tribunal held that investments in subsidiaries should be excluded when calculating disallowance under Rule 8D, following its own previous decision. It also noted that disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) requires specific conditions to be met and that the total disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income.

The Tribunal found that the issues were similar to the previous assessment year and required further examination. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years where no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of search, additions could not be made without incriminating material. For assessment years where proceedings were pending, the Tribunal found that the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding expenses and gifts were not justified due to lack of material evidence.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years where no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of search, additions could not be made without incriminating material. For assessment years where proceedings were pending, the Tribunal found that the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding expenses and gifts were not justified due to lack of material evidence.

The Tribunal held that a housing project can include independent villas and does not necessarily mean multi-story buildings. The assessee conceived, designed, developed, and executed the project systematically, selling land along with constructed villas.

The Tribunal held that while the recipient paying taxes might negate disallowance, the discrepancy between the total lease rent paid and the amount accounted for by the recipient needs examination. It also needs verification if the recipient actually paid taxes on the entire amount.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to unforeseen circumstances. It held that the authorities below were not justified in estimating gross profit and turnover without furnishing copies of impounded documents to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT circular, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- are not maintainable. Both parties conceded to this fact.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application with the CBDT under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay. Following a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer to pass an order based on CBDT's directions.

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT circulars, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's Malaysian branch did not constitute a permanent establishment in Malaysia, and the income earned from investments was taxable in India as 'income from other sources'. The Tribunal also confirmed that foreign exchange fluctuation losses are notional and not taxable, and expenses incurred for bank guarantees for business purposes are allowable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's Malaysian branch did not constitute a permanent establishment in Malaysia, and the income earned from investments was taxable in India as 'income from other sources'. The Tribunal also confirmed that foreign exchange fluctuation losses are notional and not taxable, and expenses incurred for bank guarantees for business purposes are allowable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's Malaysian branch did not constitute a permanent establishment in Malaysia, and the income earned from investments was taxable in India as 'income from other sources'. The Tribunal also confirmed that foreign exchange fluctuation losses are notional and not taxable, and expenses incurred for bank guarantees for business purposes are allowable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's Malaysian branch did not constitute a permanent establishment in Malaysia, and the income earned from investments was taxable in India as 'income from other sources'. The Tribunal also confirmed that foreign exchange fluctuation losses are notional and not taxable, and expenses incurred for bank guarantees for business purposes are allowable.