ITAT Chennai Judgments — May 2017

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record the necessary satisfaction before invoking Section 14A and that the disallowance was not made as per the prescribed formula. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear. However, the assessee can seek recall of the order if there was a sufficient cause for non-appearance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not carrying on substantial manufacturing activity at the Dehradun unit. Consequently, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction claimed under Section 80IC.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the estimation of income on High Sea sales. For the exchange rate fluctuation, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not carrying on substantial manufacturing activity at the Dehradun unit. Consequently, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction claimed under Section 80IC.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including a Chartered Engineer's report and material removal ratio, to demonstrate the increased installed capacity. The AO's disallowance was deemed not pragmatic.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including a Chartered Engineer's report and material removal ratio, to demonstrate the increased installed capacity. The AO's disallowance was deemed not pragmatic.

The tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed to be carried forward indefinitely. It also directed that depreciation on UPS be allowed at 60% and directed the AO to verify and allow credit for tax withheld and interest on refund.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the estimation of income on High Sea sales. For the exchange rate fluctuation, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed to be carried forward indefinitely. It also directed that depreciation on UPS be allowed at 60% and directed the AO to verify and allow credit for tax withheld and interest on refund.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It deleted the addition of Rs. 78,904/- related to a credit from Papayaammal and the addition of Rs. 4,62,000/- from M/s. Balaji Promoters. The issue of Rs. 29,32,000/- in bank deposits was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination of agricultural income and cash flow statements.

The Tribunal held that the bad debts claim should be allowed as the assessee had maintained books of accounts and the loss was incurred in the course of business. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was sustained, with a correction to the amount.

The tribunal, in accordance with the proviso to Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee can move for recall if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision on Section 80IB deduction was correct, following previous ITAT rulings. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on share sale losses, treating them as speculative as per Section 73.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not applicable for investments made in sister concerns out of own interest-free funds for strategic reasons. However, for investments in mutual funds, the provisions are applicable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision on Section 80IB deduction was correct, following previous ITAT rulings. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on share sale losses, treating them as speculative as per Section 73.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not applicable for investments made in sister concerns out of own interest-free funds for strategic reasons. However, for investments in mutual funds, the provisions are applicable.

The Tribunal, following a previous decision in a similar case, held that it would be harsh to levy a penalty on the assessee when the non-compliance was due to the failure of her authorized representative. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal, following a previous similar decision, condoned the delay in filing the audit report. It held that levying penalty would be harsh on the assessee, who had entrusted the compliance to their representative.

The Tribunal held that the corpus donation could not be considered income from other sources under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-computation, excluding investments that yielded no income.

The Tribunal held that the corpus donation could not be considered income from other sources under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-computation, excluding investments that yielded no income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's disallowance of only salary expenses was insufficient, as other overheads also needed to be considered. Complete details of salary expenditure for personnel involved in managing mutual funds were not disclosed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) rightly followed the previous order as the facts were identical. The loan was sanctioned to the State Government, which then distributed it to co-operative sugar mills, recovering interest from them.

The Tribunal held that the gold bullion seized was part of the assessee's stock-in-trade. The Tribunal found that the purchase of gold bullion was duly recorded and sufficient stock was available. A minor error in the serial number of a manually prepared invoice was considered a human error and not sufficient to deem the stock unaccounted.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is not applicable as investments were made from interest-free funds. However, disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) for expenditure related to earning dividend income is applicable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to set off losses from 10B units against profits of non-10B units, following previous judicial precedents. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's weighted deduction for scientific research expenditure incurred over and above the DSIR's specified limit.

The Tribunal held that there is no legal requirement to own the assets to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iv). The windmills were not previously used by the lessors, and their use by the assessee for power generation constituted a new business, not a splitting of an existing one.

The Tribunal held that there is no legal requirement to own the assets to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iv). The windmills were not previously used by the lessors, and their use by the assessee for power generation constituted a new business, not a splitting of an existing one.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, finding that the Assessing Officer had not conducted sufficient inquiries regarding expenditure relatable to earning exempted income. The assessment was therefore considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal held that there is no legal requirement to own the assets to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iv). The windmills were not previously used by the lessors, and their use by the assessee for power generation constituted a new business, not a splitting of an existing one.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to set off losses from 10B units against profits of non-10B units, following previous judicial precedents. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's weighted deduction for scientific research expenditure incurred over and above the DSIR's specified limit.

The Tribunal held that the advance given to M/s. Casserole Foods Pvt. Ltd. was not a business expenditure or loss. The assessee failed to demonstrate any business connection or expediency with the company, which was floated by the sons of the assessee's directors.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid because the assessee's objections to the reasons for reopening were not disposed of prior to the assessment order. Furthermore, the addition made was not related to the original reasons provided for reopening.

The Tribunal held that the penalty on the salary income was not leviable as the assessee acted on a bona fide mistaken impression and the AO had all the information. However, the penalty on the undeclared interest income was confirmed as it constituted concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is not applicable as investments were made from interest-free funds. However, disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) for expenditure related to earning dividend income is applicable.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable to income eligible for deduction under Section 80P, as such income forms part of the total income before deduction. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to discharge its onus to disprove the genuineness of the gift once confirmation was provided with all particulars. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the assessment was flawed as the income was wrongly classified and the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to substantiate its expenditure claims. Therefore, the case was remanded for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the interest disallowance required reconsideration by the AO based on a CA certificate. For the commission payment, it was held that since the services were rendered outside India by non-residents and not taxable in India, the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS, and the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that once a reference is made to the DVO under Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, the value fixed by the DVO, if lower than the stamp duty value, must be adopted for computing capital gains. The purpose of referring to the DVO is lost if the higher stamp duty value is still considered.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances, following its own previous decisions which allowed estimated liabilities for safety bonus and insurance premium relatable to the previous year.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Departmental Representative could not provide any reason for the appeal to lie. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to set off losses from 10B units against profits of non-10B units, following previous judicial precedents. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's weighted deduction for scientific research expenditure incurred over and above the DSIR's specified limit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to set off losses from 10B units against profits of non-10B units, following previous judicial precedents. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's weighted deduction for scientific research expenditure incurred over and above the DSIR's specified limit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to set off losses from 10B units against profits of non-10B units, following previous judicial precedents. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's weighted deduction for scientific research expenditure incurred over and above the DSIR's specified limit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to set off losses from 10B units against profits of non-10B units, following previous judicial precedents. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's weighted deduction for scientific research expenditure incurred over and above the DSIR's specified limit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to set off losses from 10B units against profits of non-10B units, following previous judicial precedents. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's weighted deduction for scientific research expenditure incurred over and above the DSIR's specified limit.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of support services expenditure was erroneous as the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had already accepted a portion of it as reasonable. For conference expenses, the matter was remanded to the AO for re-adjudication with liberty to the assessee to provide evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the excess consideration paid for the business acquisition constitutes goodwill and is eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the AO under Section 154 was time-barred as it was passed beyond the prescribed four-year period from the end of the financial year in which the original assessment order was passed. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.