ITAT Chennai Judgments — August 2017

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to this submission.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 744 days was inordinate and not sufficiently explained. The reasons provided by the assessee, such as divorce proceedings, lacked evidence and did not constitute a 'sufficient cause' for condonation.

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case, held that Unit II was a separate and independent industrial undertaking eligible for deductions under Section 80IB. Similarly, deductions under Section 80IA were also allowed.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange losses related to capital assets, when realized, should increase the cost of the capital asset, allowing for depreciation on the enhanced cost. Losses on trade liabilities, however, are on revenue account. The levy of interest under Section 234A was found to be unsustainable if the return was filed on time.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 10A, following its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years where identical facts were considered. The deduction was restricted to 50% as per Section 10A(1A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her initial onus by providing confirmation letters and particulars of the creditors. The AO failed to examine the creditors or verify the provided details before making the addition.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 744 days was inordinate and not sufficiently explained. The reasons provided by the assessee, such as divorce proceedings, lacked evidence and did not constitute a sufficient cause for condonation.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 744 days was inordinate and not sufficiently explained. The reasons provided by the assessee, such as divorce proceedings, lacked evidence and did not constitute a 'sufficient cause' for condonation.

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee was not interested in prosecuting it. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 744 days was inordinate and not sufficiently explained. The reasons provided by the assessee, such as divorce proceedings, lacked evidence and did not constitute a 'sufficient cause' for condonation.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 744 days was inordinate and not sufficiently explained. The reasons provided by the assessee, such as divorce proceedings, lacked evidence and did not constitute a 'sufficient cause' for condonation.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Both parties agreed to this course of action.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 744 days was inordinate and not sufficiently explained. The reasons provided by the assessee, such as divorce proceedings, lacked evidence and did not constitute a 'sufficient cause' for condonation.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Both parties agreed to this course of action.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted fresh evidence without obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the disallowance, following the Tribunal's own decision in the assessee's case for an earlier year and Supreme Court/High Court precedents. The commission paid for procuring export orders to non-residents outside India was not subject to TDS.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's assessments were based on available material, justice required consideration of the additional evidence. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's assessments were based on available material, justice required consideration of the additional evidence. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's assessments were based on available material, justice required consideration of the additional evidence. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's assessments were based on available material, justice required consideration of the additional evidence. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's assessments were based on available material, justice required consideration of the additional evidence. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's assessments were based on available material, justice required consideration of the additional evidence. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's assessments were based on available material, justice required consideration of the additional evidence. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's assessments were based on available material, justice required consideration of the additional evidence. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's assessments were based on available material, justice required consideration of the additional evidence. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's assessments were based on available material, justice required consideration of the additional evidence. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the advance received by the assessee was rightly treated as deemed dividend. The assessee's contention of a quid-pro-quo for providing a personal guarantee was not established, as there was no board resolution and the facts differed from relied-upon case laws.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's assessments were based on available material, justice required consideration of the additional evidence. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's assessments were based on available material, justice required consideration of the additional evidence. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's assessments were based on available material, justice required consideration of the additional evidence. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's assessments were based on available material, justice required consideration of the additional evidence. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's assessments were based on available material, justice required consideration of the additional evidence. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary for adjudication were not emanating from the orders of the AO or CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication, with specific directions for the AO and the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) should have examined the details of the expenditure claimed under Section 35(1) instead of outright denying it. The matter was remanded to the AO for adjudication on merits, with the onus on the assessee to substantiate its claim.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which instructs officers to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs, is binding. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.

The tribunal held that losses incurred in earlier years and already set off against other business profits cannot be notionally brought forward and set off against the profits of the eligible business under Section 80IA(5). The assessee's claim for deduction was allowable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) should have examined the details of the expenditure claimed under Section 35(1) instead of outright denying it. The matter was remanded to the AO for adjudication on merits, with the onus on the assessee to substantiate its claim.

The Tribunal, after verifying the records, found the assessee's correction to be accurate. The assessment years in the cause title of the original order have been corrected accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the assessee fund was indeed a recognized provident fund, having obtained recognition prior to 1944 and its name change being approved. The delay in filing a specific form (Form 40C) did not automatically lead to withdrawal of recognition, especially given the provisions allowing time for compliance.

The Tribunal, after verifying the records, found the assessee's correction to be accurate. The assessment years in the cause title of the original order have been corrected accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred was capital in nature, similar to a previous assessment year, and thus not allowable as revenue expenditure. The claim for 100% depreciation on temporary structures was also rejected due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable if investments in sister concerns are made for strategic reasons from interest-free funds. However, if made from interest-bearing funds, the interest cost is attributable to such investments.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the 2% disallowance under Section 14A based on judicial precedent in the assessee's own case. It also affirmed the allowance of bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii), finding that the assessee had correctly reduced prior provisions.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the Departmental Representative failed to produce the Revenue Audit Objection. Without this objection, the Revenue could not demonstrate how it fell under the exemption set out in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation for the gold purchase might not be sufficient to avoid an addition, it did not necessarily constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The levy of penalty was not warranted.

The Tribunal, after verifying the records, found the assessee's correction to be accurate. The assessment years in the cause title of the original order have been corrected accordingly.

The Tribunal held that gifts were not proved, and the addition for unaccounted advances based on a pronote was not sustainable. However, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted as cash payment was necessitated by the seller for customs duty. Additions for inflated purchases and commission were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs as unexplained capital was not warranted. It considered the family's accumulated savings from their long-standing involvement in the leather industry and the confirmation letters from family members.

The Tribunal held that while the initial claim might have been due to misinterpretation, deliberately making the same wrong claim in subsequent years amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars to evade tax. Therefore, the penalty is warranted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the companies providing share capital. The retraction of statements by an entry provider was also deemed an afterthought. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.