ITAT Chennai Judgments — June 2017

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 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, following its own precedent, directed that only 50% of the disallowed amount should be added back to the assessee's income. This was done by applying the benefit of doubt due to the nature of the assessee's employment.

The Tribunal found that all relevant facts were not emanating from the lower authorities' orders. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law as it was done beyond four years without fresh information and solely on a change of opinion, thus quashing the assessment order. For other assessment years, the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law as it was done beyond four years without fresh information and solely on a change of opinion, thus quashing the assessment order. For other assessment years, the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. It also rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80C due to lack of evidence and disallowed the cost of renovation for capital gains computation for lack of substantiation.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. It also rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80C due to lack of evidence and disallowed the cost of renovation for capital gains computation for lack of substantiation.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. It also rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80C due to lack of evidence and disallowed the cost of renovation for capital gains computation for lack of substantiation.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. It also rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80C due to lack of evidence and disallowed the cost of renovation for capital gains computation for lack of substantiation.

The tribunal held that since the defects in filing the appeals were not rectified even after multiple opportunities, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that a valid revised return, if not rejected by the AO, replaces the original return. The mandatory issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is return-specific, not assessment year-specific. Failure to issue this notice for the valid revised return renders the assessment invalid.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable even if business activity is temporarily suspended, provided the business is not permanently closed and is resumed later. Similarly, factory land and building used for business purposes are not liable for Wealth Tax during a temporary lull in business.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 154 for a debatable issue. The AO should have invoked Section 147/148 for escaped income instead of using the rectification provision.

The Tribunal held that interest expenditure incurred after the acquisition of an asset is generally allowable as a revenue deduction. Regarding withholding tax, the Tribunal held that tax credit should be given once foreign income is offered to tax in India.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. It also rejected the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80C due to lack of evidence and disallowed the cost of renovation for capital gains computation for lack of substantiation.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law as it was done beyond four years without fresh information and solely on a change of opinion, thus quashing the assessment order. For other assessment years, the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner was justified in invoking Section 263 because the Assessing Officer failed to re-determine the unabsorbed depreciation as directed by a previous ITAT order. The revisionary power was correctly exercised due to the AO's lack of inquiry.

The tribunal held that since the defects in filing the appeals were not rectified even after multiple opportunities, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

The tribunal held that since the defects in filing the appeals were not rectified even after multiple opportunities, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

The tribunal held that since the defects in filing the appeals were not rectified even after multiple opportunities, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground as the assessee failed to provide a valid reason for not pressing it before the lower appellate authority. The Tribunal cited precedents that an assessee cannot challenge an order they previously accepted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate a reasonable cause or business exigency for accepting cash loans. It also noted that the creditors had bank accounts, and the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the cash transactions.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange gains derived from export business are eligible for deduction under Section 10A, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remitted the issue of Section 54F exemption back to the AO for re-examination. The ground regarding additional depreciation was not pressed and was endorsed.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law as it was done beyond four years without fresh information and solely on a change of opinion, thus quashing the assessment order. For other assessment years, the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law as it was done beyond four years without fresh information and solely on a change of opinion, thus quashing the assessment order. For other assessment years, the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law as it was done beyond four years without fresh information and solely on a change of opinion, thus quashing the assessment order. For other assessment years, the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim that he received the sale consideration of ₹8 lakhs on behalf of his father was an afterthought. The Tribunal noted that the sale deed listed seven vendors, including the assessee, his mother, brothers, and sisters, in addition to his father. All vendors signed every page of the sale deed. The Tribunal observed that the assessee received ₹8 lakhs as his share of the sale consideration, which he deposited into his bank account and utilized for his own purposes, including purchasing a plot of land for ₹3,27,456. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) confirming the AO's action. Regarding the HUF property claim, the Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities that the property, obtained by the assessee's father through a settlement deed from his mother, could not partake the character of an HUF property, especially since the sale deed did not describe it as such. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not addressed the assessee's claim that other properties were commercial in nature. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the premium paid on forward contracts for a foreign currency loan used to set up a project is a capital loss, but depreciation should be allowed on the enhanced cost of the asset. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made when no exempt income has been earned.

The Tribunal held that the premium paid on forward contracts for a foreign currency loan used to set up a project is a capital loss, but depreciation should be allowed on the enhanced cost of the asset. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made when no exempt income has been earned.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking in detailed consideration of the assessee's objections. It held that a quasi-judicial authority must pass a well-reasoned speaking order after examining all facts.

The tribunal held that the write-off of the security deposit was factually indeterminate and required further factual ascertainment, remanding it to the AO. The write-back of the provision was directed to be adjusted against the cost of assets, impacting depreciation.

The tribunal held that the write-off of the security deposit was factually indeterminate and required further factual ascertainment, remanding it to the AO. The write-back of the provision was directed to be adjusted against the cost of assets, impacting depreciation.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a reasonable cause for the delay, supported by an affidavit. Considering substantial justice over technicalities, the Tribunal condoned the delay.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee opts for the presumptive taxation scheme under Section 44AE, maintaining books of accounts is not mandatory. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271A was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should have been given an opportunity to rectify the defect in the return, as per Section 139(9). Since this opportunity was not provided, the penalty under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the issue of commercial space was restored to the AO for re-adjudication, the issue of approval also needed to be restored. The AO must verify if the 2010 approval was new or a modification of the 2007 approval.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in making the addition without examining the relatives who allegedly provided gifts and without considering the assessee's own accumulated savings. The addition was deemed unjustifiable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have treated the return as defective under Section 139(9) and given the assessee an opportunity to rectify the omission. Since this opportunity was not provided, the penalty levied was not justifiable.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of project expenses to the Assessing Officer to examine the applicability of Section 10(26). The disallowance for consultancy charges was upheld. The issue of the Section 68 addition was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of identity, genuineness, and capacity of the lender.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim of double taxation and decided to remit the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to verify if the capital gain was indeed already assessed in the HUF's hands and to reframe the assessment accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the delay was due to a bona fide belief of the assessee and that substantial justice should prevail over technicality. The delay was condoned, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, considering commercial expediency and expenditure attributable to investments, and applying Section 14A read with Rule 8D.

The Tribunal found that the AO's order was not a speaking order and lacked clarity regarding the facts, including the initiation of a search and seized material. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal, finding the assessee's submissions unconvincing and lacking evidence even at the appellate stage, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The assessee was given one last opportunity to present evidence and cooperate with the authorities.

The Tribunal held that the AO's action of rejecting the assessee's explanation without making inquiries with the loan creditors was not justifiable. The amounts advanced by the loan creditors were considered nominal and reasonable.

The Tribunal found that the AO's order was not a speaking order and lacked clarity regarding the facts, including the initiation of a search and seized material. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the AO's order was not a speaking order and lacked clarity regarding the facts, including the initiation of a search and seized material. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication.