ITAT Chennai Judgments — May 2017

The Tribunal held that Section 271AAA is applicable only to 'specified previous years' as defined, which include the year of search and the preceding year if the return was not filed by the due date. For other assessment years, Section 271(1)(c) is applicable. The matter was remitted for re-adjudication on merits for those years.

The Tribunal held that the registered conveyance deed is conclusive evidence of the consideration that actually passed. Therefore, the appeal lacked merit.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the non-deduction of tax due to the accountant's omission and genuine misunderstanding, especially since the tax was paid immediately after being pointed out. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the windmills were put to use when connected to the grid on July 17, 2010, and generated electricity even before commercial production started. Therefore, they were eligible for full depreciation. The Tribunal also held that civil works and electrical installation for the windmills are part of the windmill and eligible for the same depreciation rate.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was validly issued within the time limit prescribed under Section 149. It further held that the bonus units received had a cost of acquisition of 'Nil' as per Section 55(2)(aa), and the amount received on switching out was taxable as short-term capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) exceeded his jurisdiction by setting aside the assessment order and directing the AO to examine fresh evidence. The CIT(Appeals) should have called for a remand report from the AO or decided the issue on merit.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice for penalty did not specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, thus denying the assessee an effective opportunity to represent their case. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that transfer of property occurred on April 9, 2012, when the agreement for sale and physical possession transfer took place, as per Section 2(47) of the Act. Consequently, investments made after this date, even before the sale deed registration, are eligible for exemption under Section 54.

The Tribunal held that the surplus from the sale of the land should be treated as capital gains, as the assessee had consistently shown it as a capital asset. However, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the capital gains by allowing a 30% discount on the basic land rate, considering the property's disadvantageous location and legal complexities.

The Tribunal held that the losses incurred on forward contracts were in the course of business activity and not speculative. It also confirmed the deletion of additions related to foreign agent commission and the disallowance under Section 35(2AB), finding the CIT(Appeals) orders to be justified.

The Tribunal held that the three individuals, due to their vast experience and qualifications, were instrumental in the assessee company earning its consultancy income. The disallowance of consultancy fees and vehicle hire charges was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that since the addition made under Section 68 for the advances was deleted by the Tribunal itself, there was no basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The pendency of a High Court appeal does not justify the penalty.

The Tribunal held that payments to M/s Jaldhi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. were not subject to TDS, following a High Court decision. The issue of interest on advances to the sister concern was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for a prior AY had remitted a similar issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration. Following this precedent, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that payments to M/s Jaldhi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. were not subject to TDS, following a High Court decision. The issue of interest on advances to the sister concern was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.

The Tribunal followed the Madras High Court's judgment in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT. Based on this precedent, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authority's order.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay on the part of the assessee as the auditor was busy with tax audit finalization and there was no negligence on the assessee's part. The delay of 6 days was condoned.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were not commercial in nature and therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable. The Tribunal also ruled that depreciation is not allowable on assets whose cost has already been allowed as application of income under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that giving the assessee another opportunity to argue the case on merit would not prejudice the Revenue and would promote the cause of justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not properly examined the source of the large cash deposits, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner was justified in directing a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had tangible material to justify reopening, including a letter from the assessee regarding contract receipts and significant differences in balance sheets. The rejection of books of accounts and estimation of income were also deemed justified.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable in view of the CBDT circular regarding appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not properly examined the source of the large cash deposits, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner was justified in directing a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were not commercial in nature and thus the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable. Consequently, the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not properly examined the source of the large cash deposits, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner was justified in directing a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that Section 271AAA is applicable only to 'specified previous years' as defined, which include the year of search and the preceding year if the return was not filed by the due date. For other assessment years, Section 271(1)(c) is applicable. The matter was remitted for re-adjudication on merits for those years.

The Tribunal held that Section 271AAA is applicable only to 'specified previous years' as defined, which include the year of search and the preceding year if the return was not filed by the due date. For other assessment years, Section 271(1)(c) is applicable. The matter was remitted for re-adjudication on merits for those years.

The Tribunal held that Section 271AAA is applicable only to 'specified previous years' as defined, which include the year of search and the preceding year if the return was not filed by the due date. For other assessment years, Section 271(1)(c) is applicable. The matter was remitted for re-adjudication on merits for those years.

The Tribunal held that Section 271AAA is applicable only to 'specified previous years' as defined, which include the year of search and the preceding year if the return was not filed by the due date. For other assessment years, Section 271(1)(c) is applicable. The matter was remitted for re-adjudication on merits for those years.

The Tribunal held that the losses incurred on forward contracts were in the course of business activity and not speculative. It also confirmed the deletion of additions related to foreign agent commission and the disallowance under Section 35(2AB), finding the CIT(Appeals) orders to be justified.

The Tribunal held that the losses incurred on forward contracts were in the course of business activity and not speculative. It also confirmed the deletion of additions related to foreign agent commission and the disallowance under Section 35(2AB), finding the CIT(Appeals) orders to be justified.

The Tribunal held that the losses incurred on forward contracts were in the course of business activity and not speculative. It also confirmed the deletion of additions related to foreign agent commission and the disallowance under Section 35(2AB), finding the CIT(Appeals) orders to be justified.

The Tribunal held that the losses incurred on forward contracts were in the course of business activity and not speculative. It also confirmed the deletion of additions related to foreign agent commission and the disallowance under Section 35(2AB), finding the CIT(Appeals) orders to be justified.

The Tribunal held that the windmills were put to use when connected to the grid on July 17, 2010, and generated electricity even before commercial production started. Therefore, they were eligible for full depreciation. The Tribunal also held that civil works and electrical installation for the windmills are part of the windmill and eligible for the same depreciation rate.

The Tribunal held that payments to M/s Jaldhi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. were not subject to TDS, following a High Court decision. The issue of interest on advances to the sister concern was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to prove the business of trading old TV sets, withdrawals from the bank account should be considered for set-off. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to work out the peak credit in the bank account for addition.

The Tribunal held that the appeal for AY 2011-12 was not maintainable due to low tax effect. For AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, strategic investments in a subsidiary for business expediency are not disallowable under Section 14A. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of bogus purchases as the assessee had stock and the AO lacked independent verification.

The Tribunal held that payments to M/s Jaldhi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. were not subject to TDS, following a High Court decision. The issue of interest on advances to the sister concern was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.

The Tribunal held that the appeal for AY 2011-12 was not maintainable due to low tax effect. For AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, strategic investments in a subsidiary for business expediency are not disallowable under Section 14A. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of bogus purchases as the assessee had stock and the AO lacked independent verification.

The ITAT held that the credit balance addition needed to be re-examined by the AO as the assessee failed to substantiate it with books of accounts. The disallowance of pooja expenses to the extent of Rs. 3 lakhs was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that payments to M/s Jaldhi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. were not subject to TDS, following a High Court decision. The issue of interest on advances to the sister concern was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.

The Tribunal found that the assessee, being a Non-Resident, may not have had sufficient opportunity to produce evidence. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not properly examined the source of the large cash deposits, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner was justified in directing a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's agreement to an addition indicated a lack of confidence in their accounts. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in not pointing out specific defects, and the addition was rightly made.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision is binding on all authorities, and the pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court does not justify ignoring it. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals)'s order was confirmed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim without the Assessing Officer having an opportunity to examine the evidence. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot make variations in income related to international transactions after October 1, 2009, without passing a draft assessment order. This omission is not a procedural irregularity and cannot be cured.

The Tribunal held that the appeal for AY 2011-12 was not maintainable due to low tax effect. For AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, strategic investments in a subsidiary for business expediency are not disallowable under Section 14A. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of bogus purchases as the assessee had stock and the AO lacked independent verification.

The Tribunal held that the applicability of Section 2(22)(e) depends on whether the assessee firm or its individual partners are the beneficial owners of the shares. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.

The Tribunal held that the period of holding of the previous owner must be considered for indexation benefit in cases of succession or inheritance. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the indexed cost of acquisition considering April 1, 1981, as the base year.