ITAT Chennai Judgments — June 2017

The Tribunal held that the arbitration expenses were incurred to resolve disputes among partners regarding business control and revenue, not for the purpose of business itself. Therefore, it was not an allowable business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, considering the substantial issues involved and the illness of the authorized signatory, the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the issue of bad debts needed further verification by the AO as the details were not placed before him. However, the addition of accrued interest on sticky loans was deleted, following previous Tribunal decisions which held that NBFCs bound by RBI guidelines are not required to recognize interest income on non-performing assets on an accrual basis.

The Tribunal held that the addition related to Form-26AS was an advance and reimbursement, not income, and thus no penalty was attracted. However, the excess depreciation claimed inadvertently was considered a case of concealment, and penalty was confirmed on this issue. The penalty on sundry creditors was deleted as they were opening balances and not proven to be bogus.

The Tribunal held that since the investments were made from interest-free funds (own capital), no interest expenditure could be attributed to them. Therefore, Section 14A was not applicable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, relying on its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2010-11. The Tribunal found that the process of converting a granite block into a monument results in a new and distinct object with a different character and usage.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on interior decoration of leased premises for showrooms is revenue expenditure. This decision followed a previous ITAT ruling on identical issues for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the creditor for the loans. Regarding the seized books, the Tribunal upheld the additions based on the presumption under Section 132(4A) of the Act, as the assessee could not prove otherwise.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a determinate trust and its income should be allowed to pass through to beneficiaries. Disallowances under Chapter IV of the IT Act were not applicable to income not forming part of total income under Chapter III.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a determinate trust and its income should be allowed to pass through to beneficiaries. Disallowances under Chapter IV of the IT Act were not applicable to income not forming part of total income under Chapter III.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a determinate trust and its income should be allowed to pass through to beneficiaries. Disallowances under Chapter IV of the IT Act were not applicable to income not forming part of total income under Chapter III.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the creditor for the loans. Regarding the seized books, the Tribunal upheld the additions based on the presumption under Section 132(4A) of the Act, as the assessee could not prove otherwise.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the creditor for the loans. Regarding the seized books, the Tribunal upheld the additions based on the presumption under Section 132(4A) of the Act, as the assessee could not prove otherwise.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the creditor for the loans. Regarding the seized books, the Tribunal upheld the additions based on the presumption under Section 132(4A) of the Act, as the assessee could not prove otherwise.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is permissible only to the extent of the provision actually created in the books for the relevant assessment year, not on unadjusted brought forward provisions. The re-opening of assessment was also upheld based on a factual error pointed out by the audit.

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 expenditure incurred on interior decoration of leased premises for showrooms is revenue expenditure. This decision followed a previous ITAT ruling on identical issues for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that for unproven liabilities, the assessee has the liberty to decide when to surrender them. However, the AO needs to verify if the assessee has indeed offered these amounts as income in a subsequent year before confirming the addition. For another issue regarding stock valuation, the Tribunal found discrepancies and directed the AO to verify the correct physical stock.

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 assessee is a determinate trust and its income should be allowed to pass through to beneficiaries. Disallowances under Chapter IV of the IT Act were not applicable to income not forming part of total income under Chapter III.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a determinate trust and its income should be allowed to pass through to beneficiaries. Disallowances under Chapter IV of the IT Act were not applicable to income not forming part of total income under Chapter III.

The Tribunal held that there is no bar in Section 80IA(4)(iv) for an assessee to claim deduction if they generate power by taking assets on lease. The assessee satisfied all the conditions for the deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance for professional fees paid to a foreign consultant. However, the issue of Section 14A disallowance was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal held that interest income from inter-corporate deposits should be assessed under 'Income from other sources'.

The Tribunal held that since the Transfer Pricing Officer made no adjustment to the assessee's international transactions, no penalty under Section 271AA could be levied. The deletion of the penalty by the CIT(Appeals) was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that there is no bar in Section 80IA(4)(iv) for an assessee to claim deduction if they generate power by taking assets on lease. The assessee satisfied all the conditions for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that there is no bar in Section 80IA(4)(iv) for an assessee to claim deduction if they generate power by taking assets on lease. The assessee satisfied all the conditions for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that there is no bar in Section 80IA(4)(iv) for an assessee to claim deduction if they generate power by taking assets on lease. The assessee satisfied all the conditions for the deduction.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine (at the outset) because the defects pointed out by the registry were not rectified by the assessee despite multiple opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not sustainable, considering a similar issue for a prior assessment year where the CIT(Appeals) had deleted the addition. The Tribunal noted that the advance was found to be returned to M/s. Manish Traders.

The Tribunal condoned the three-day delay in filing the application before the DRP, citing a technical defect and detailed reasons provided by the assessee. The issues were restored to the DRP for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not sustainable, considering a similar issue for a prior assessment year where the CIT(Appeals) had deleted the addition. The Tribunal noted that the advance was found to be returned to M/s. Manish Traders.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation as the initial show cause notice was issued by the Dy. Commissioner, and the subsequent notice by the Addl. Commissioner did not reset the limitation period. The penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation as the initial show cause notice was issued by the Dy. Commissioner, and the subsequent notice by the Addl. Commissioner did not reset the limitation period. The penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation as the initial show cause notice was issued by the Dy. Commissioner, and the subsequent notice by the Addl. Commissioner did not reset the limitation period. The penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation as the initial show cause notice was issued by the Dy. Commissioner, and the subsequent notice by the Addl. Commissioner did not reset the limitation period. The penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation as the initial show cause notice was issued by the Dy. Commissioner, and the subsequent notice by the Addl. Commissioner did not reset the limitation period. The penalty order was quashed.