ITAT Chennai Judgments — March 2017

The Tribunal held that the assessee's registration under Section 12AA and approval under Section 10(23C) were withdrawn, making it ineligible for exemptions. The Tribunal found that the fee structures and details of excess collections were not on record.

The Tribunal held that the amendment requiring ownership of only one residential house was prospective and not applicable to the year under consideration. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for exemption even if the capital gain was invested in multiple residential units.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) did not examine the documentary evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of the issue concerning the Rs. 49,00,000/- addition.

The Tribunal held that no interest income accrued on the deposit due to doubt of recovery, applying the 'real income' theory. It also held that interest paid to the partner was for business purposes, ensuring continuous supply of yarn.

The Tribunal held that the order of the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) on the Section 12AA application would impact the assessments. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of the order to be passed by the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) on the Section 12AA application.

The Tribunal held that the order of the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) on the Section 12AA application would impact the assessments. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the order of the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) on the Section 12AA registration application would impact the assessee's assessments. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the order of the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) on the Section 12AA application would impact the assessments. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal, considering the consistent non-appearance of the assessee, concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the trust was a revocable trust as per Section 61 of the Income Tax Act, and therefore, the income derived by the trust should be taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the trust was a revocable trust as per Section 61 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the income derived by the trust was to be taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) does not have the power to remit matters back to the Assessing Officer. However, since the issue required re-examination, the Tribunal exercised its power to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay. It directed the AO to disallow 2% of exempt income for AY 2005-06 and 2007-08, upholding the disallowance of depreciation for AY 2007-08. For AY 2008-09 and 2010-11, the matter of Section 14A disallowance on investments in sister concerns was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It found that the superannuation fund contributions pertained to earlier assessment years and were disclosed in the tax audit report, thus not falling under the purview of FBT which was effective from assessment year 2006-07.

The Tribunal held that the charity collections need to be re-examined by the AO to determine if separate books of account were maintained, similar to a previous ruling. For entertainment and other expenses, the Tribunal found the disallowances made by the CIT(A) to be excessive and set them aside.

The Tribunal found that the AO's disallowance was based on a vague inspector's report without cogent evidence. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction based on land purchase and plan approval was upheld, as the AO did not provide evidence to suggest the house was uninhabitable.

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of pooja expenses, considering them reasonable for a business establishment. For investments in sister concerns, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the AO to examine if funds were borrowed, as Section 14A would apply only to investments made from borrowed funds.

The Tribunal held that losses cannot be set off against profits of an eligible unit before allowing deduction under Section 10A/10B, following the Apex Court's decision. For Section 14A, the Tribunal found that the calculation of disallowance under the third limb of Rule 8D(2) was not properly considered and directed a re-computation.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of disallowance for payments to overseas agents back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. For the disallowance related to public sector undertakings, the matter was also remitted to the AO for a fresh examination of facts regarding TDS. The deletion of additions for delayed employee PF contributions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that a residential house can include multiple flats/units and that the amendment to Section 54F, which restricted this deduction for multiple units, had prospective operation and was not applicable to the assessment year in question. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals)'s order was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the classification by the State Revenue Department, as evidenced by the 'adangal' extract showing cultivation, is paramount. The classification by the Registration Department cannot override the revenue records. Therefore, the land is to be treated as agricultural land.

The Tribunal held that the order of the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) on the Section 12AA registration application would impact the assessments. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of limitation and the specificity of the penalty notice were not raised before lower authorities. Since these issues go to the root of the matter, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that no interest income accrued on the deposit due to doubt of recovery, applying the 'real income' theory. It also held that interest paid to the partner was for business purposes, ensuring continuous supply of yarn.

The Tribunal held that no interest income accrued on the deposit due to doubt of recovery, applying the 'real income' theory. It also held that interest paid to the partner was for business purposes, ensuring continuous supply of yarn.

The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 10A is to be calculated prior to setting off losses as per Chapter VI of the Act. It also confirmed the eligibility of foreign exchange gain for Section 10A deduction.

The Tribunal held that the charity collections need to be re-examined by the AO to determine if separate books of account were maintained, similar to a previous ruling. For entertainment and other expenses, the Tribunal found the disallowances made by the CIT(A) to be excessive and set them aside.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of limitation and the specificity of the penalty notice were not raised before lower authorities. Since these issues go to the root of the matter, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of limitation and the specificity of the penalty notice were not raised before lower authorities. Since these issues go to the root of the matter, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of limitation and the specificity of the penalty notice were not raised before lower authorities. Since these issues go to the root of the matter, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of limitation and the specificity of the penalty notice were not raised before lower authorities. Since these issues go to the root of the matter, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of limitation and the specificity of the penalty notice were not raised before lower authorities. Since these issues go to the root of the matter, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay. It directed the AO to disallow 2% of exempt income for AY 2005-06 and 2007-08, upholding the disallowance of depreciation for AY 2007-08. For AY 2008-09 and 2010-11, the matter of Section 14A disallowance on investments in sister concerns was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay. It directed the AO to disallow 2% of exempt income for AY 2005-06 and 2007-08, upholding the disallowance of depreciation for AY 2007-08. For AY 2008-09 and 2010-11, the matter of Section 14A disallowance on investments in sister concerns was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay. It directed the AO to disallow 2% of exempt income for AY 2005-06 and 2007-08, upholding the disallowance of depreciation for AY 2007-08. For AY 2008-09 and 2010-11, the matter of Section 14A disallowance on investments in sister concerns was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the order of the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) on the Section 12AA application would impact the assessments. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found a violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, as the Assessing Officer was not given an opportunity to examine the additional evidence. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 10A is to be calculated prior to setting off losses as per Chapter VI of the Act. It also confirmed the eligibility of foreign exchange gain for Section 10A deduction.

The Tribunal held that an intimation under Section 143(1) is an appealable order before the CIT(A), as per Section 246A(1)(a) of the Act. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that merely agreeing to an addition and paying the tax and interest does not automatically warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee had a reasonable cause for the lapse, and penalty is not automatic.

The Tribunal admitted grounds related to the validity of reopening assessments in the name of a non-existent company, as these were legal issues going to the root of the assessment. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits, including the allowability of warranty provisions.

The Tribunal admitted grounds related to the validity of reopening assessments in the name of a non-existent company, as these were legal issues going to the root of the assessment. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits, including the allowability of warranty provisions.

The Tribunal found that the nature and timing of various expenses like vehicle, fuel, and salary needed further analysis to determine if they were incurred before or after business commencement. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed its entire income and made the claim for amenities rent under business income on a bonafide belief. Therefore, it was not a case of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 80IB(10) regarding the sale of multiple flats to one individual was prospective and not applicable to sales made before its effective date. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction.

The Tribunal admitted grounds related to the validity of reopening assessments in the name of a non-existent company, as these were legal issues going to the root of the assessment. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits, including the allowability of warranty provisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 281 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) admitted fresh evidence without adhering to Rule 46A and without obtaining a remand report from the AO. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that neither party had provided the balance sheet to verify the CIT(A)'s finding that loans and advances constituted 70% of the company's current assets. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.