ITAT Chennai Judgments — November 2016

The Tribunal held that for indexation purposes, the period of holding by the previous owner (donor) must also be considered. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the claim of indexation from the year the property was originally acquired.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee's explanation for the lower sale consideration of the first floor, citing termite damage and Vastu defects, was presented as a reason for the difference.

The Tribunal held that a captive power plant qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA, even if the power generated is consumed internally. It also ruled that interest expenses on loans taken for the cement project cannot be allocated to the captive power plant unit.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer needs to re-examine the issue of whether the land is agricultural. This requires verification of cultivation accounts maintained by the State Government, such as the 'adangal' extract.

The Tribunal held that merely because the assessee could not substantiate the claims, it cannot be said that inaccurate particulars were furnished or income was concealed, especially when all details were disclosed. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a company that has ceased to exist due to amalgamation is void. The participation of the assessee in assessment proceedings does not create an estoppel against the law.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide the assessee with an opportunity to respond to the valuation report before passing the assessment order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not conduct independent inquiries for the relevant assessment year and relied on information from a different year without giving the assessee an opportunity to rebut. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had discharged their burden by producing books of accounts for the business loss claim.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to place on record any evidence to justify the addition. The aunt's confirmation, along with proof of her income and her residence in the USA where the assessee was studying, was considered sufficient.

The Tribunal allowed the claim for mess expenditure as self-made vouchers were not inherently defective. It also allowed 100% depreciation on temporary structures, considering them as revenue expenditure. For depreciation on machinery, it allowed claims where items were ready for use but disallowed where use could not be proven.

The Tribunal held that the assessee provided sufficient evidence of purchases, including sales tax registration and confirmations, and that the cash payments were justified under Rule 6DD(k) as the suppliers acted as agents. The penalty for delayed audit report was deleted due to reasonable cause.

The Tribunal allowed the claim for mess expenditure as self-made vouchers were not inherently defective. It also allowed 100% depreciation on temporary structures, considering them as revenue expenditure. For depreciation on machinery, it allowed claims where items were ready for use but disallowed where use could not be proven.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's claim for deemed registration under Section 12A, based on a Supreme Court judgment, could be valid if the application was pending, there was no material on record to prove the application was filed. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's claim for deemed registration under Section 12A, based on a Supreme Court judgment, could be valid if the application was pending, there was no material on record to prove the application was filed. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's claim for deemed registration under Section 12A, based on a Supreme Court judgment, could be valid if the application was pending, there was no material on record to prove the application was filed. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction to exclude investments that did not yield taxable income was in line with Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the AO ought to have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer as per the mandatory provisions of Section 50C(2) when the assessee claimed the sale consideration was less than the stamp duty value. The guideline value may not always represent the fair market value.

The Tribunal held that replacing mosaic flooring with marble flooring and purchasing new machinery like ACs and dishwashers for a star hotel constitutes maintenance and is revenue in nature, aimed at improving ambiance and maintaining the business asset. Therefore, the expenditure was rightly treated as revenue by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that this issue was decided in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment years by the same Tribunal. The Tribunal also confirmed the exclusion of foreign currency expenditure from both total turnover and export turnover, as it should be consistent.

The Tribunal, following its own coordinate bench's decision on identical facts for earlier assessment years, set aside the lower authorities' orders. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The tribunal held that disallowances made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be added to the book profit computed under Section 115JB. The lower authorities' orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that disallowances made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be added to the book profit computed under Section 115JB. The lower authorities' orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the turnover of each unit cannot be compared with its area of operation, as this is not a correct method for assessing the validity of the turnover. The CIT(A) was found to be correct in concluding that the turnover of the two units cannot be compared on the basis of operational area.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity to present their case due to a hurried assessment process. The AO issued an email for information just two days before passing the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not solely rely on the DVO's report for determining the cost of construction and should make an independent appraisal. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal found that the assessment was completed with the assessee's participation and there was no significant non-compliance or revenue loss, thus deleting the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not provided the Assessing Officer with an opportunity to verify additional evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside for limited purposes to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the imported machinery were independent capital assets and not mere replacements. It also upheld the disallowance of depreciation on the splitting machine due to lack of ownership and defects. However, it found that renovation of a conference hall was not a capital expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not solely rely on the DVO's report for determining the cost of construction and should make an independent appraisal. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal found that the assessment was completed with the assessee's participation and there was no significant non-compliance or revenue loss, thus deleting the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not solely rely on the DVO's report for determining the cost of construction and should make an independent appraisal. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal found that the assessment was completed with the assessee's participation and there was no significant non-compliance or revenue loss, thus deleting the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the imported machinery were independent capital assets and not mere replacements. It also upheld the disallowance of depreciation on the splitting machine due to lack of ownership and defects. However, it found that renovation of a conference hall was not a capital expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the payments were made to transport companies, not individual drivers, and the exceptional circumstances under Rule 6DD were not met. Therefore, Section 40A(3) was attracted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not solely rely on the DVO's report for determining the cost of construction and should make an independent appraisal. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal found that the assessment was completed with the assessee's participation and there was no significant non-compliance or revenue loss, thus deleting the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not provided the Assessing Officer with an opportunity to verify additional evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside for limited purposes to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to recast the financial statements and go behind the net profit shown in the Profit and Loss account, except to the extent provided in the relevant section. Therefore, the addition of profit on sale of land to book profits was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the delay in obtaining Board approval for filing appeals by cooperative societies constituted a reasonable cause. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the delay in obtaining Board approval for filing appeals by the cooperative societies constituted a reasonable cause. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the Malaysian AE were in the nature of data entry operations for accounting and HR functions, not technical or managerial services. Therefore, TDS was not required, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the Malaysian AE were in the nature of data entry operations for accounting and HR functions, not technical or managerial services. Therefore, TDS was not required, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not applicable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the deduction under Section 80HHB should be allowed for each project separately without netting off losses from other projects, citing judicial precedents. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had complied with the provisions regarding the Foreign Project Reserve Account.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of ₹3 crore difference in Shri S. Martin's account back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. It confirmed the addition of ₹1,36,58,106, disallowed ₹3,39,578 under Section 40A(3), sustained an addition of ₹29,05,000 for cash credits, and deleted the addition of ₹97,00,000 for customer advances.

The Tribunal held that a sworn statement recorded during a survey cannot be the sole basis for reopening an assessment. There was no fresh tangible material to form a belief for reopening.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of ₹3 crore difference in Shri S. Martin's account back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. It confirmed the addition of ₹1,36,58,106, disallowed ₹3,39,578 under Section 40A(3), sustained an addition of ₹29,05,000 for cash credits, and deleted the addition of ₹97,00,000 for customer advances.

The Tribunal held that a sworn statement recorded during a survey cannot be the sole basis for reopening an assessment. There was no fresh tangible material to form a belief for reopening.

The Tribunal held that a sworn statement recorded during a survey cannot be the sole basis for reopening an assessment. There was no fresh tangible material to form a belief for reopening.

The Tribunal, following a precedent, decided that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the case. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal, following a precedent, decided that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the case. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that since the outstanding amounts were written off and recovery of the principal was doubtful, no interest income could be accrued to the assessee, even under the mercantile system of accounting. Therefore, the CIT(A) rightly allowed the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that the period shares were held as stock-in-trade should be excluded when determining long-term capital gains. Consequently, the issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for recalculation.

The Tribunal held that the period shares were held as stock-in-trade should be excluded when determining long-term capital gains. Consequently, the issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for recalculation.

The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal as withdrawn in view of the CBDT circular regarding appeals with a tax effect below Rs 10 lakhs. Consequently, the cross-objections filed by the assessee were also dismissed as not maintainable.