ITAT Chennai Judgments — June 2017

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, observing the lack of interest from the assessee in pursuing the appeal and the delay, dismissed the appeal in limine.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 194A regarding TDS on interest paid by co-operative banks was prospective, effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, the assessee was not liable for TDS on interest paid to its members.

The Tribunal held that the advance storage fees received for a 21-year period should be spread over the entire period and not taxed entirely in the year of receipt. This decision followed previous judgments in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 194A regarding TDS on interest paid by co-operative banks was prospective, effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, the assessee was not liable for TDS on interest paid to its members.

The Tribunal found no reason to differ with the CIT(A)'s order, as it was based on a decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 194A regarding TDS on interest paid by co-operative banks was prospective, effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, the assessee was not liable for TDS on interest paid to its members.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 194A regarding TDS on interest paid by co-operative banks was prospective, effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, the assessee was not liable for TDS on interest paid to its members.

The Tribunal held that it has the power to entertain a point of law for the first time if the facts are available. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for verification of the claim for deduction u/s.10A.

The Tribunal held that the provision for VI pay commission arrears required further verification of actual payment and remanded the issue. For nomination charges, it followed previous decisions and allowed the deduction. Regarding leave salary provisions, it held that deduction is only allowed if actually paid as per Section 43B(f) due to a stay by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the provision for VI pay commission arrears required further verification of actual payment and remanded the issue. For nomination charges, it followed previous decisions and allowed the deduction. Regarding leave salary provisions, it held that deduction is only allowed if actually paid as per Section 43B(f) due to a stay by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the provision for VI pay commission arrears required further verification of actual payment and remanded the issue. For nomination charges, it followed previous decisions and allowed the deduction. Regarding leave salary provisions, it held that deduction is only allowed if actually paid as per Section 43B(f) due to a stay by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) to amounts not outstanding as on March 31st. For the foreign agency commission, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the recipients had admitted and paid tax on the income, allowing the deduction if confirmed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions that the nature of payments was not examined. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be applied in the absence of exempt income. Since the assessee had not earned any exempt income, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of unexplained cash deposits back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification due to discrepancies in the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee's appeals regarding land investment and suppressed interest were dismissed for lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee made an obvious mistake in classifying capital expenditure as revenue, the penalty calculation by the revenue authorities was incorrect. The AO was directed to recompute the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the delay in obtaining the star classification was a procedural delay on the part of the authorities, and the assessee should not be penalized for it. Therefore, the disallowance of the deduction under section 35AD(5)(aa) was deleted. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision as no material was provided for higher depreciation rates.

The Tribunal held that while filing the audit report is mandatory, the time limit for filing is discretionary. The delay in filing did not jeopardize the determination of taxable income and the CIT(Appeals) rightly relied on a CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the provision for VI pay commission arrears required further verification of actual payment and remanded the issue. For nomination charges, it followed previous decisions and allowed the deduction. Regarding leave salary provisions, it held that deduction is only allowed if actually paid as per Section 43B(f) due to a stay by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of unexplained cash deposits back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification due to discrepancies in the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee's appeals regarding land investment and suppressed interest were dismissed for lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that a CBDT circular cannot overrule a High Court judgment. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in following the Madras High Court's judgment, which allowed the claim.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide necessary details and evidence to substantiate the claim for write-off of advances as bad debts or business expenditure. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was sustained.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of unexplained cash deposits back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification due to discrepancies in the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee's appeals regarding land investment and suppressed interest were dismissed for lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) deleted the additions without giving the AO an opportunity to examine additional evidence. Therefore, the case was set aside to the AO for fresh examination and a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the provision for VI pay commission arrears required further verification of actual payment and remanded the issue. For nomination charges, it followed previous decisions and allowed the deduction. Regarding leave salary provisions, it held that deduction is only allowed if actually paid as per Section 43B(f) due to a stay by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the provision for VI pay commission arrears required further verification of actual payment and remanded the issue. For nomination charges, it followed previous decisions and allowed the deduction. Regarding leave salary provisions, it held that deduction is only allowed if actually paid as per Section 43B(f) due to a stay by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the provision for VI pay commission arrears required further verification of actual payment and remanded the issue. For nomination charges, it followed previous decisions and allowed the deduction. Regarding leave salary provisions, it held that deduction is only allowed if actually paid as per Section 43B(f) due to a stay by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of royalty expenses as revenue expenditure, following previous tribunal decisions. It also directed the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A for investments in subsidiary companies but confirmed the disallowance for investments in mutual funds. The claim for bad debts was confirmed as disallowed.

The Tribunal held that royalty payments are revenue expenditure and confirmed the disallowance under Section 14A for investments in mutual funds and unrelated companies, but directed deletion for investments in sister concerns. The addition to book profit under Section 115JB was also deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling on identical facts. The Tribunal found no infirmity in allowing the deduction based on the year of claim, not the year of establishment.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 220(2) is not chargeable during the period when the demand was deleted by appellate authorities, as there was no outstanding demand. The amendment to Section 220 is prospective.

The Tribunal held that additional depreciation is a beneficial provision and cannot be disallowed in the subsequent year if the machinery was not fully utilized in the year of purchase. The assessee is entitled to the balance additional depreciation in the subsequent year.

The Tribunal held that the additional income admitted by the assessee during the survey needs to be verified against the evidence found and the defects in the books of accounts. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to non-residents for air freight and reimbursements were not taxable in India as the services were rendered outside India and the recipients had no Permanent Establishment or business connection in India. Therefore, no TDS was attracted.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on interior works in leased premises was capital in nature and not current repairs. The assessee failed to establish that the expenditure was towards temporary structures eligible for 100% depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10A should be computed while calculating the gross total income of the eligible undertaking, not at the stage of total income computation. Relying on the Apex Court's decision in CIT v. Yokogowa Ltd., the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that royalty payments are revenue expenditure and confirmed the disallowance under Section 14A for investments in mutual funds and unrelated companies, but directed deletion for investments in sister concerns. The addition to book profit under Section 115JB was also deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of royalty expenses as revenue expenditure, following previous tribunal decisions. It also directed the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A for investments in subsidiary companies but confirmed the disallowance for investments in mutual funds. The claim for bad debts was confirmed as disallowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling on identical facts. The Tribunal found no infirmity in allowing the deduction based on the year of claim, not the year of establishment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It agreed that for Section 14A, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is not applicable if the average investment in the balance sheet is nil. For the PF contribution, it followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision that remittance before the return filing due date is acceptable.

The Tribunal held that since the amounts were remitted before the due date of filing the return of income, the deduction should be allowed. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the gains from the sale of share options, received through the employer's scheme, are to be treated as a benefit in lieu of salary or perquisite. The decision of a co-ordinate bench on identical facts was followed.

The Tribunal found merit in the AO's order, stating the assessee had not made serious efforts to prove the genuineness of the sundry creditors. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for verification of documents after obtaining a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that the funds received were for establishing infrastructure for Eastman Exports' business and not for the assessee's own business, and the assessee had no liberty to use the facilities independently. Therefore, the amount could not be treated as income in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the transfer to statutory reserves was an application of income and not deductible. However, it upheld the deletion of disallowance for royalty payments and ESOP expenses, following previous decisions.

The Tribunal held that the arbitration expenses were incurred to resolve disputes among partners regarding business control and revenue, and thus were not incidental to the business. Therefore, the disallowance by the AO was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior rulings on similar issues concerning depreciation and employee contributions to PF & ESI. The pendency of an appeal before the High Court did not warrant a different view.

The Tribunal held that the supplementary deed was executed in the financial year 2010-11, which falls in assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the remuneration could not be allowed for the assessment year 2010-11.