ITAT Chennai Judgments — April 2017

The Tribunal held that the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IB(10) depends on whether the local authority's approval for the housing project included the private terraces as built-up area. Since the building approval was not on record, the matter was remanded for re-examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it noted that the tax effect of the appeals was below the monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 10 lakhs, and its retrospective application, made the Revenue's appeals not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding depreciation, treating the water supply and drainage assets as 'plant' due to their special technical requirements in mining operations. However, the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA on handling charges, interest from employees, and miscellaneous income, while allowing an estimated 10% of these incomes as expenditure.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed all five appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in each appeal was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, falling below the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which applies retrospectively.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding depreciation, treating the water supply and drainage assets as 'plant' due to their special technical requirements in mining operations. However, the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA on handling charges, interest from employees, and miscellaneous income, while allowing an estimated 10% of these incomes as expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 10 lakhs, applicable retrospectively, rendered the Revenue's appeals not maintainable. The appeals were dismissed based on this circular.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 10 lakhs and applied retrospectively, was binding on the Department. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding depreciation, treating the water supply and drainage assets as 'plant' due to their special technical requirements in mining operations. However, the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA on handling charges, interest from employees, and miscellaneous income, while allowing an estimated 10% of these incomes as expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in allowing the claim. Following the Madras High Court judgment, deposits made after the due date under the relevant Act but before the due date for filing the return of income under the Income-tax Act cannot be disallowed.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed all five appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in each appeal was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, falling below the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which applies retrospectively.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals), finding no reason to interfere as it had followed previous orders of the Tribunal on similar issues for earlier assessment years.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed all five appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in each appeal was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, falling below the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which applies retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the CBDT's circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals. The circular was clarified to apply retrospectively.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it noted that the tax effect of the appeals was below the monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 for filing appeals.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals), finding no reason to interfere as it had followed previous orders of the Tribunal on similar issues for earlier assessment years.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed all five appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in each appeal was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, falling below the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which applies retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IB(10) depends on whether the local authority's approval for the housing project included the private terraces as built-up area. Since the building approval was not on record, the matter was remanded for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 10 lakhs, and its retrospective application, made the Revenue's appeals not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding depreciation, treating the water supply and drainage assets as 'plant' due to their special technical requirements in mining operations. However, the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA on handling charges, interest from employees, and miscellaneous income, while allowing an estimated 10% of these incomes as expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the CBDT's circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals. The circular was clarified to apply retrospectively.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding depreciation, treating the water supply and drainage assets as 'plant' due to their special technical requirements in mining operations. However, the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA on handling charges, interest from employees, and miscellaneous income, while allowing an estimated 10% of these incomes as expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 10 lakhs and applied retrospectively, was binding on the Department. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is binding on the Department and applies retrospectively. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IB(10) depends on whether the local authority's approval for the housing project included the private terraces as built-up area. Since the building approval was not on record, the matter was remanded for re-examination.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's rejection of the assessee's claims for depreciation adjustment and unutilized capacity adjustment, citing lack of supporting material and distinguishing case laws. Other grounds related to adjustments for return on net worth, CPM, and risk management were also dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed all five appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in each appeal was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, falling below the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which applies retrospectively.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it noted that the tax effect of the appeals was below the monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the CBDT's circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals. The circular was clarified to apply retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the CBDT's circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals. The circular was clarified to apply retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in allowing the claim. Following the Madras High Court judgment, deposits made after the due date under the relevant Act but before the due date for filing the return of income under the Income-tax Act cannot be disallowed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is binding on the Department and applies retrospectively. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is binding on the Department and applies retrospectively. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is binding on the Department and applies retrospectively. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it noted that the tax effect of the appeals was below the monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 for filing appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it noted that the tax effect of the appeals was below the monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that expenses for increasing authorized capital were not allowable, but the listing fee required reconsideration. Pension payment disallowance was remitted for re-examination under Section 37(1). The assessment order was set aside due to a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) not being issued within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal held that expenses for increasing authorized capital were not allowable, but the listing fee required reconsideration. Pension payment disallowance was remitted for re-examination under Section 37(1). The assessment order was set aside due to a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) not being issued within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection as not maintainable. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, while the revenue's appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal confirmed the DRP's relief on issues like export incentives, additional depreciation, depreciation on UPS/printers/scanners, guarantee charges, and provision for warranty, following previous decisions.

The Tribunal held that expenses for increasing authorized capital were not allowable, but the listing fee required reconsideration. Pension payment disallowance was remitted for re-examination under Section 37(1). The assessment order was set aside due to a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) not being issued within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection as not maintainable. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, while the revenue's appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal confirmed the DRP's relief on issues like export incentives, additional depreciation, depreciation on UPS/printers/scanners, guarantee charges, and provision for warranty, following previous decisions.

The Tribunal held that the source of Rs. 10,00,000 from the land sale was explained, considering the father's ailment and the assessee's care. However, the Rs. 10,00,000 from the sale of standing trees remained unsubstantiated.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection as not maintainable. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, while the revenue's appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal confirmed the DRP's relief on issues like export incentives, additional depreciation, depreciation on UPS/printers/scanners, guarantee charges, and provision for warranty, following previous decisions.

The Tribunal held that offering property as collateral and selling it to settle a loan are distinct transactions. The sale proceeds used to satisfy a debt do not create an overriding title on the income arising from the sale, and therefore, cannot be set off against capital gains.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection as not maintainable. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, while the revenue's appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal confirmed the DRP's relief on issues like export incentives, additional depreciation, depreciation on UPS/printers/scanners, guarantee charges, and provision for warranty, following previous decisions.

The Tribunal held that since M/s. Alagar Roadways had filed its return of income, the assessee should be given credit for at least his share of income from the AOP. The lower authorities failed to verify the AOP's return.

The Tribunal held that a technical lapse of not depositing sale proceeds in a specific capital gains scheme account, while depositing them in a nationalized bank savings account from which the house was constructed, should not disentitle the assessee to the deduction. The benefit of Section 54F should not be denied for such a minor technical breach.

The Tribunal held that since M/s. Alagar Roadways had filed its return of income, the assessee should be given credit for at least his share of income from the AOP. The lower authorities failed to verify the AOP's return.

The Tribunal held that expenses for increasing authorized capital were not allowable, but the listing fee required reconsideration. Pension payment disallowance was remitted for re-examination under Section 37(1). The assessment order was set aside due to a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) not being issued within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted documents and relied on previous Tribunal decisions for adjacent lands. The matter was remitted back to the AO to verify the genuineness of the documents and the adjacency claim.