ITAT Chennai Judgments — July 2017

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment after four years is not justified in the absence of negligence on the part of the assessee. For the subsequent assessment year, the issue of reopening was not considered by the lower appellate authority.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding land cost and common expenses. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeal on Section 14A disallowance, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict it to exempt income. The Revenue's appeal on Section 14A was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of retention money boils down to whether the right to receive it has arisen during the relevant year, which is a factual determination. The assessee's method of computing the excluded amount was found to be inconsistent and not leading to the correct taxable income.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding land cost and common expenses. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeal on Section 14A disallowance, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict it to exempt income. The Revenue's appeal on Section 14A was partly allowed.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition for deposits in Sisal Holdings Limited, as the assessee's admission to pay tax on these funds was not disproven. However, for deposits in Nicola Fallaha/Alex Fallaha's name, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after further investigation.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition for deposits in Sisal Holdings Limited, as the assessee's admission to pay tax on these funds was not disproven. However, for deposits in Nicola Fallaha/Alex Fallaha's name, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after further investigation.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue afresh. This was based on previous similar matters where the issue was remitted for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the liability for bonus redemption was certain and accrued in the accounting year, following previous judgments. It also held that the arbitrary method of valuing closing stock was not consistent and therefore not permissible.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had clearly established the initial assessment year for the Section 10AA claim. Similarly, the eligibility of foreign exchange gains for the deduction required further examination.

The Tribunal held that the date of commencement of construction is irrelevant, provided the construction is completed within three years of the transfer of the original asset. However, the repayment of a housing loan cannot be considered part of the construction cost for claiming exemption.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable if no exempt income is earned in the relevant year. It also held that interest expenditure incurred for commercial expediency is allowable. Depreciation on roads was allowed treating them as buildings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the interest of justice. Consequently, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the liability for bonus redemption was certain and accrued in the accounting year, following previous judgments. It also held that the arbitrary method of valuing closing stock was not consistent and therefore not permissible.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable if no exempt income is earned in the relevant year. It also held that interest expenditure incurred for commercial expediency is allowable. Depreciation on roads was allowed treating them as buildings.

The Tribunal held that the liability for bonus redemption was certain and accrued in the accounting year, following previous judgments. It also held that the arbitrary method of valuing closing stock was not consistent and therefore not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the interest of justice. Consequently, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable if no exempt income is earned in the relevant year. It also held that interest expenditure incurred for commercial expediency is allowable. Depreciation on roads was allowed treating them as buildings.

The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision which set aside the Tribunal's earlier order and remitted the matter to the AO to pass appropriate orders in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Rotork India (P) Ltd. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the liability for bonus redemption was certain and accrued in the accounting year, following previous judgments. It also held that the arbitrary method of valuing closing stock was not consistent and therefore not permissible.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable if no exempt income is earned in the relevant year. It also held that interest expenditure incurred for commercial expediency is allowable. Depreciation on roads was allowed as part of buildings.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of property was complete in the financial year 2005-06, as evidenced by the receipt of full consideration by cheque and the handing over of possession. Therefore, the assessment made in the subsequent year (AY 2007-08) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that statements recorded during a survey are not conclusive evidence and cannot be solely relied upon for assessment. The Tribunal also found that expenses on milk cans and crates were revenue in nature, and firewood purchase was covered by Rule 6DD.

The Tribunal held that the property could not be considered agricultural land. Despite being recorded as agricultural in revenue records and situated away from a municipality, other circumstances indicated it was not used for agricultural purposes.

The Tribunal found that the DVO's valuation was not property-wise and remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to obtain individual property valuations and re-examine the applicability of Section 50C and the date of acquisition for indexation.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not warranted because the construction was in a non-metropolitan city and PWD rates are lower than CPWD rates. The variation was considered meager.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee can establish a nexus between borrowed capital and investment in the partnership firm, the interest paid on such borrowings should be allowed as a deduction. The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it held that the appeals were not maintainable before the Tribunal in view of a CBDT circular instructing officers not to file appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 10 lakhs.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it held that the appeals were not maintainable before the Tribunal in view of a CBDT circular instructing officers not to file appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 10 lakhs.

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

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated by the CBDT. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was held to be not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the onus is on the assessee to explain the source of unexplained bank deposits. Since the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or evidence for the deposits, they were rightly treated as unexplained income under Section 69.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it held that the appeals were not maintainable before the Tribunal in view of a CBDT circular instructing officers not to file appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 10 lakhs.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it held that the appeals were not maintainable before the Tribunal in view of a CBDT circular instructing officers not to file appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 10 lakhs.

The Tribunal condoned the delay but held that the appeals were not maintainable. This was based on a CBDT circular instructing the department not to file appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 10 lakhs.

The Tribunal condoned the delay but held that the appeals were not maintainable. This was based on a CBDT circular instructing officers not to file appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 10 lakhs.

The Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeals where the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. It also dismissed a Revenue appeal concerning a protective addition related to land sale advances, finding it rightly deleted. The Tribunal allowed an assessee's appeal against a Section 263 order, finding no error prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeals where the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. It also dismissed a Revenue appeal concerning a protective addition related to land sale advances, finding it rightly deleted. The Tribunal allowed an assessee's appeal against a Section 263 order, finding no error prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals concerning the disallowance under Section 14A as they were not pressed. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue's view on certain items, classifying them as waste collection or yarn quality improvement rather than dust collectors, thus denying higher depreciation.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals concerning the disallowance under Section 14A as they were not pressed. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue's view on certain items, classifying them as waste collection or yarn quality improvement rather than dust collectors, thus denying higher depreciation.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals concerning the disallowance under Section 14A as they were not pressed. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue's view on certain items, classifying them as waste collection or yarn quality improvement rather than dust collectors, thus denying higher depreciation.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals concerning the disallowance under Section 14A as they were not pressed. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue's view on certain items, classifying them as waste collection or yarn quality improvement rather than dust collectors, thus denying higher depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the AO's orders were cryptic and lacked reasoning, indicating a non-application of mind. Therefore, the PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 jurisdiction and directed a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted that despite proper service of notice, the assessee did not appear for the hearing. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal restored the issue of re-opening of assessment to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's appeal on merits was not adjudicated at this stage.

The Tribunal held that the assesses were not granted an adequate opportunity to substantiate their case, particularly regarding the cross-examination of sellers who admitted to receiving on-money payments. In the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the expenditures were incurred to extinguish third-party rights and obtain a clear, unencumbered title to the immovable property, thereby increasing its value. Since the Revenue could not disprove the CIT(A)'s findings, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to produce necessary material to support its claim.

The Tribunal held that the assesses were not granted an adequate opportunity to substantiate their case, particularly regarding the cross-examination of sellers who admitted to receiving on-money payments. In the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the assesses were not granted an adequate opportunity to substantiate their case, particularly regarding the cross-examination of sellers who admitted to receiving on-money payments. In the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the expenditures were incurred to extinguish third-party rights and obtain a clear, unencumbered title to the immovable property, thereby increasing its value. Since the Revenue could not disprove the CIT(A)'s findings, the appeal was dismissed.