ITAT Chennai Judgments — June 2017

The tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A can only be made when exempt income is actually earned, not on notional or anticipated income. The jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd was relied upon.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for one more opportunity to produce necessary details before the Assessing Officer. The lower authorities' orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were vague and not supported by evidence. The Tribunal found the delay to be inordinate and not a sufficient cause for condonation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) had not considered whether the expenditure relatable to retention money was allowable. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that since the payment was made as per the Managing Director's instructions for his benefit, it could not be construed as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee. The debit to the assessee's account was considered a bonafide mistake.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had substantiated agricultural income and that the bad debts were legitimately written off as per legal provisions and judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the delay was inordinate and the assessee's approach was casual. The Tribunal emphasized that the law assists the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights.

The Tribunal held that the eligibility for deduction under Section 54F for investment in multiple flats needs clarification, especially in light of the Madras High Court judgment in CIT v. V.R. Karpagam. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to determine if the two flats constituted a single residential unit.

The Tribunal held that civil construction forming the foundation for windmills is an integral part of the windmill and cannot exist without it. Therefore, it should be treated as a single unit for depreciation purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 54F even if multiple adjoining flats are acquired and converted into one unit, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT was justified in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had not complied with the CIT's earlier direction and had not properly examined the deduction claim. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT's order to remit the issue for fresh enquiry.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment after four years was not justified as there was no negligence on the part of the assessee in furnishing particulars at the time of the original assessment. The assessee had provided all available information, and the commercial area was sold prior to the reopening notice.

The Tribunal, applying the ratio of a co-ordinate bench, found that the assessee's swap transaction in foreign currency constituted a speculative loss. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue were allowed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit. Consequently, the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The respondent did not object to the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal held that the AO relied on documents without confronting them to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issue of the addition's merit was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the completion of construction within three years is not mandatory, but commencement is necessary. It also held that using borrowed funds for construction does not disentitle the assessee to Section 54 deduction. The issue of enhancement was also remitted due to lack of proper verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of developing lands into plots and selling them, as per the partnership deed and development agreement, constituted a business adventure. Therefore, the gains were to be treated as business income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in disregarding decisions from other High Courts simply because a jurisdictional High Court decision was unavailable. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of particulars.

The Tribunal held that belated remittance of employee's PF contribution beyond the due date under the PF Act, but before the return filing date, is disallowable under Section 36(1)(va). However, it allowed the exclusion of foreign exchange fluctuations from export turnover for Section 10B deduction, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the director's overseas tour and a family medical emergency. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer correctly applied Rule 8D due to the assessee's failure to provide investment details. However, to ensure fairness, the matter was remanded for fresh verification of investment details by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative, having retrospective effect from April 1, 2005. Therefore, disallowance is not warranted when the recipient has paid taxes on the income.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments made during the year is allowable, citing a Supreme Court judgment. Regarding development expenses, the Tribunal found insufficient proof and remanded the issue for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments made during the year is allowable, citing a Supreme Court judgment. Regarding development expenses, the Tribunal found insufficient proof and remanded the issue for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on payments made during the year is allowable, citing a Supreme Court judgment. Regarding development expenses, the Tribunal found insufficient proof and remanded the issue for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of developing lands into plots and selling them, as per the partnership deed and development agreement, constituted a business adventure. Therefore, the gains were to be treated as business income.

The Tribunal held that the issue of revenue recognition needs to be decided in accordance with the Accounting Standards laid down by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order under Section 271FA is maintainable under Section 246A(1)(q). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was void ab initio as it was passed on a non-existent entity. The Assessing Officer was aware of the merger prior to passing the assessment and penalty orders.

The Tribunal held that the issue of revenue recognition needs to be decided in accordance with the Accounting Standards laid down by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that municipal tax paid during the financial year should be allowed and remitted the issue for verification. For Section 14A, it directed disallowance at 2% of exempted income, as the assessment year predates the mandatory application of Rule 8D. The expenses for Login Ads and Hanza Zone were also remitted for verification.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 12 lakhs for AY 2010-11, finding the AO's addition unwarranted. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal deleted the levy of interest under sections 234B & C beyond the date of filing the revised return, stating the AO should have adjusted the seized cash.

The Tribunal agreed that the income should be treated as business income, following the Supreme Court's precedent. However, it noted that the Assessing Officer had not examined the allowability of expenses claimed under business income.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 12 lakhs for AY 2010-11, finding the AO's addition unwarranted. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal deleted the levy of interest under sections 234B & C beyond the date of filing the revised return, stating the AO should have adjusted the seized cash.

The Tribunal held that brought forward losses cannot be set off against current year's profits for computing Section 10B deduction, relying on a Supreme Court decision. Interest income and subsidy were not considered derived from export of articles/things and thus not eligible for deduction under Section 10B.

The Tribunal held that brought forward losses cannot be set off against current year's profits for computing Section 10B deduction, relying on a Supreme Court decision. Interest income and subsidy were not considered derived from export of articles/things and thus not eligible for deduction under Section 10B.

The Tribunal held that brought forward losses cannot be set off against current year's profits for computing Section 10B deduction, relying on a Supreme Court decision. Interest income and subsidy were not considered derived from export of articles/things and thus not eligible for deduction under Section 10B.

The Tribunal held that brought forward losses cannot be set off against current year's profits for computing Section 10B deduction, relying on a Supreme Court decision. Interest income and subsidy were not considered derived from export of articles/things and thus not eligible for deduction under Section 10B.

The Tribunal held that brought forward losses cannot be set off against current year's profits for computing Section 10B deduction, relying on a Supreme Court decision. Interest income and subsidy were not considered derived from export of articles/things and thus not eligible for deduction under Section 10B.

The Tribunal held that brought forward losses cannot be set off against current year's profits for computing Section 10B deduction, relying on a Supreme Court decision. Interest income and subsidy were not considered derived from export of articles/things and thus not eligible for deduction under Section 10B.

The Tribunal held that brought forward losses cannot be set off against current year's profits for computing Section 10B deduction, relying on a Supreme Court decision. Interest income and subsidy were not considered derived from export of articles/things and thus not eligible for deduction under Section 10B.

The Tribunal held that brought forward losses cannot be set off against current year's profits for computing Section 10B deduction, relying on a Supreme Court decision. Interest income and subsidy were not considered derived from export of articles/things and thus not eligible for deduction under Section 10B.

The Tribunal held that brought forward losses cannot be set off against current year's profits for computing Section 10B deduction, relying on a Supreme Court decision. Interest income and subsidy were not considered derived from export of articles/things and thus not eligible for deduction under Section 10B.

The Tribunal held that brought forward losses cannot be set off against current year's profits for computing Section 10B deduction, relying on a Supreme Court decision. Interest income and subsidy were not considered derived from export of articles/things and thus not eligible for deduction under Section 10B.

The Tribunal held that the issue of revenue recognition needs to be decided in accordance with the Accounting Standards laid down by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the issue of revenue recognition needs to be decided in accordance with the Accounting Standards laid down by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that brought forward losses cannot be set off against current year's profits for computing Section 10B deduction, relying on a Supreme Court decision. Interest income and subsidy were not considered derived from export of articles/things and thus not eligible for deduction under Section 10B.