ITAT Chennai Judgments — July 2017

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and DRP should have entertained the alternate claim under Section 10A. The assessee's submission of Form 56F with a request to treat the return as revised was considered sufficient.

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 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 presumed that the notice was served on the assessee. As the assessee did not appear, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing despite receiving notice. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, with liberty to move for recall if sufficient cause is shown.

The Tribunal found the assessment order cryptic and directed the Assessing Officer to verify if there was any income in the hands of the payee liable for TDS. The AO was also asked to rectify any factual errors regarding the interest/EMI amount.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with the filing of Form 27C was achieved even with a delay, as the genuineness of the declarations was not disputed. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with the filing of Form 27C was achieved even with a delay, as the genuineness of the declarations was not disputed. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with the filing of Form 27C was achieved even with a delay, as the genuineness of the declarations was not disputed. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with the filing of Form 27C was achieved even with a delay, as the genuineness of the declarations was not disputed. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with the filing of Form 27C was achieved even with a delay, as the genuineness of the declarations was not disputed. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with the filing of Form 27C was achieved even with a delay, as the genuineness of the declarations was not disputed. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with the filing of Form 27C was achieved even with a delay, as the genuineness of the declarations was not disputed. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with the filing of Form 27C was achieved even with a delay, as the genuineness of the declarations was not disputed. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with the filing of Form 27C was achieved even with a delay, as the genuineness of the declarations was not disputed. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with the filing of Form 27C was achieved even with a delay, as the genuineness of the declarations was not disputed. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with the filing of Form 27C was achieved even with a delay, as the genuineness of the declarations was not disputed. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with the filing of Form 27C was achieved even with a delay, as the genuineness of the declarations was not disputed. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with the filing of Form 27C was achieved even with a delay, as the genuineness of the declarations was not disputed. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with the filing of Form 27C was achieved even with a delay, as the genuineness of the declarations was not disputed. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with the filing of Form 27C was achieved even with a delay, as the genuineness of the declarations was not disputed. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with the filing of Form 27C was achieved even with a delay, as the genuineness of the declarations was not disputed. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable to strategic investments made by the assessee as part of its business of promoting industries. For the Section 43B issue, the matter was remanded for verification. The provision for enhanced compensation was allowed for statistical purposes pending further adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not obtained a report from the Assessing Officer before accepting the assessee's details. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

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

The Tribunal held that interest payments to the Department of Bio-Technology and Department of Science & Technology are not covered under Section 43B as these are not public financial institutions or scheduled banks. The Tribunal also found that the cash credit was adequately explained as a loan from the director.

The Tribunal held that the addition by the AO was on account of unexplained stock, not an estimation of Gross Profit. The AO's valuation of the entire excess stock at a higher rate was deemed erroneous. The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the valuation recorded by the survey team.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenses for non-deduction of TDS. It followed the Supreme Court's decision which overruled the Allahabad High Court's view, holding that Section 40(a)(ia) applies even if the amount has been paid.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as there was no tangible material to support the AO's belief of income escapement, and the AO was aware of the facts during the original assessment.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of land gifting to the AO for examining the conditions laid by the Tiruchirappali Corporation for layout approval. The issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was also remitted to the AO to verify if TDS was remitted before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had substantial reserves and surplus, and the exempt income earned was not available. Since the assessee had admitted expenditure for earning exempt income, the Assessing Officer should have recorded reasons for not accepting it. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the DVO's report cannot be used for assessment without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. Since the AO did not properly reject the books, the DVO's report and the subsequent assessment are invalid.

The Tribunal held that a loan transaction between husband and wife, especially for urgent business commitments without interest or repayment conditions, cannot be construed as a loan transaction between a borrower and a lender. Therefore, the penalty under section 271D was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the TPO did not follow the due procedure prescribed under Rule 10D for selecting comparable companies and did not provide a search strategy. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable to strategic investments made by the assessee as part of its business of promoting industries. For the Section 43B issue, the matter was remanded for verification. The provision for enhanced compensation was allowed for statistical purposes pending further adjudication.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance was achieved as the genuineness of the declarations was not disputed, and a minor delay in filing Form 27C should not defeat the claim. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(Appeals) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with the filing of Form 27C was achieved even with a delay, as the genuineness of the declarations was not disputed. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting fresh evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found mistakes apparent from the record in the intimation issued under Section 143(1). The issues were restored to the AO for verification of the assessee's non-resident status and the source of salary income.

The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward losses need not be set off before allowing deductions under Sections 10A/10B. It also held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the non-resident consultant fell under the category of 'included services' as per Article 12(4) of the India-Canada DTAA. The assessee failed to prove the services qualified as independent personal services under Article 14.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly concluded the assessment under Section 144 after the assessee failed to comply with notices and opportunities. The Tribunal also partly allowed the appeal regarding the cost of construction by enhancing the relief for self-supervision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to prove that the amount received was on account of business transactions and not a loan. Therefore, the order of the lower authorities confirming the addition as deemed dividend was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind during the original assessment and the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion. Therefore, the reopening under Section 147 was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment under Section 147 was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. The Assessing Officer had already adjudicated the issue in the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance based on assumptions and presumptions, especially when GP and NP increased and other expenses decreased, was not sustainable. The CIT(A)'s observation that expenditure proportionality to sales turnover lacked basis without evidence was justified.

The Tribunal held that for computing indexed cost of acquisition, the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner should be included. Therefore, indexation should be granted from the year of original purchase by the mother.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's willingness to produce further evidence and parties before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and verification.

The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward losses need not be set off before allowing deductions under Sections 10A/10B. It also held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned.