ITAT Chennai Judgments — October 2017

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had the power to rectify mistakes apparent from the record under Section 154 of the IT Act. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the rectification order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the death of a creditor does not abate the debt due to them, and legal heirs can claim the debt. The efflux of time does not make such a debt income in the hands of the debtor, and there was no cessation of liability.

The Tribunal held that disallowing depreciation as application of income while granting exemption under Section 11 is not justified. It clarified that allowing depreciation as application of income does not amount to double deduction. The amendment disallowing depreciation was held to be prospective from AY 2015-16.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had the power to rectify mistakes apparent from the record under Section 154 of the IT Act. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the rectification order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had the power to rectify mistakes apparent from the record under Section 154 of the IT Act. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the rectification order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had the power to rectify mistakes apparent from the record under Section 154 of the IT Act. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the rectification order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the fact that an appeal was filed before the High Court does not warrant a different view. Following its own previous orders on identical issues, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that Section 43A of the Income Tax Act is not applicable as the asset was acquired domestically. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the fluctuation loss on a foreign currency loan for acquiring indigenous assets is a revenue expenditure and allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 were validly initiated as the relevant facts came to light during the assessment for AY 2010-11. However, the disallowance of interest premium on debentures was upheld, as the Tribunal found the transaction to be a colorable device and not a genuine infusion of funds for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that after the amendment to Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act w.e.f. 01.04.2002, unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward without a time limit and set off against income. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had the power to rectify mistakes apparent from the record under Section 154 of the IT Act. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the rectification order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had the power to rectify mistakes apparent from the record under Section 154 of the IT Act. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the rectification order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds.

The tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the reopened assessment order was indeed set aside by the CIT's revision. The assessee was advised to challenge any subsequent consequential assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 80IB(10)(f), which were introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, effective from April 1, 2010, cannot be applied retrospectively to allotments made before the amendment came into force. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the validity of the reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all issues, including the validity of reopening and the claim for relief under Section 90.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the validity of the reassessment proceedings for AY 2012-13. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all issues, including the validity of reopening and the claim for relief under Section 90.

The Tribunal held that the assessee incurred expenses for earning consultancy income and was not entitled to reimbursement. The matter was restored to the AO to decide after considering the materials provided by the assessee and applying the test of reasonableness.

The Tribunal held that following the amendment to Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act w.e.f. April 1, 2002, unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward and set off against income from any head without the previous eight-year restriction.

The Tribunal held that interest granted under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not part of compensation or enhanced consideration and is taxable. Other components of enhanced compensation are exempt under Section 10(37).

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 were validly initiated as the relevant facts came to light during the assessment for AY 2010-11. However, the disallowance of interest premium on debentures was upheld, as the Tribunal found the transaction to be a colorable device and not a genuine infusion of funds for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 were validly initiated as the relevant facts came to light during the assessment for AY 2010-11. However, the disallowance of interest premium on debentures was upheld, as the Tribunal found the transaction to be a colorable device and not a genuine infusion of funds for business purposes.

The Tribunal found that there was no corroborative material to support the alleged payment of extra consideration and the payment was not supported by any statement from the sellers. Therefore, the addition was not confirmed.

The Tribunal held that a penalty cannot be levied based on an assessment order that has been set aside by the Tribunal. The base order for the penalty was no longer in existence, rendering the penalty unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had the power to rectify mistakes apparent from the record under Section 154 of the IT Act. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the rectification order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 were validly initiated as the relevant facts came to light during the assessment for AY 2010-11. However, the disallowance of interest premium on debentures was upheld, as the Tribunal found the transaction to be a colorable device and not a genuine infusion of funds for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that the credit related to the sale of the Hospet property was not satisfactorily explained as the sale transaction occurred in an earlier assessment year. However, the credit related to the Khichan property was also not satisfactorily explained due to insufficient evidence and lack of proper documentation.

The Tribunal found that the authorities below did not examine the nature of expenses in detail. Certain expenditures, like those for electrical items and temporary structures, appeared to be revenue in nature.

The Tribunal held that the non-filing of Form 52A constituted a technical and venial breach, and the circumstances surrounding the film's production presented a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal held that leasing out idle medical equipment and utilizing the lease income for charitable activities is incidental to the main charitable purpose and not a separate business activity. Therefore, the denial of exemption was not justified.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted when investments were made in sister concerns for business purposes. The issues regarding foreign exchange loss and professional charges were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that leasing out idle medical equipment and utilizing the lease income for charitable activities is incidental to the main charitable purpose and not a separate business activity. Therefore, the denial of exemption was not justified.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-verify the claim for scientific expenses under Section 35(1). The disallowance on investments in the subsidiary was dismissed. The claim for depreciation on software at 60% was upheld.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A was not applicable as the income from the retained flats was taxable under 'income from house property', not exempt income. Regarding investments in sister concerns, the Tribunal upheld the deletion based on previous tribunal rulings.

The Tribunal upheld the assessee's status as a commission agent but reduced the estimated commission income from 5% to 4% of the total receipts, considering it to be on the higher side.

The Tribunal found the assessment order to be cryptic and lacking in details regarding the computation of deduction under Section 10A. Therefore, it upheld the PCIT's order to set aside the assessment and direct the AO to pass a fresh order.

The Tribunal held that leasing out idle medical equipment and utilizing the lease income for charitable activities is incidental to the main charitable purpose and not a separate business activity. Therefore, the denial of exemption was not justified.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, holding that disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted when investments were in sister concerns. The assessee's appeals on foreign exchange loss and professional charges were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found the assessment order to be cryptic and lacking in details regarding the computation of deduction under Section 10A. Therefore, it upheld the PCIT's order to set aside the assessment and direct the AO to pass a fresh order.

The Tribunal found merit in the CIT(A)'s order but, at the assessee's request, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate by producing necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted when investments were made in sister concerns for business purposes. The issues regarding foreign exchange loss and professional charges were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw both appeals. The Departmental Representative did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.

The assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw both appeals. The Departmental Representative did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the difference of 0.14% over the permissible limit should be ignored because the assessee used older machinery compared to the comparable companies. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of most additions, finding that the AO had not discharged his burden of proof in many instances. However, the Tribunal sustained an addition of Rs. 9 lakhs related to recovered advances.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the process of converting beach sand into garnet sand constituted manufacture. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue had previously accepted the assessee as a manufacturer for Section 80HHC purposes.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's appeal, noting that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the facts and had relied on external cases without proper examination. The matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law as there was no failure by the assessee to disclose material facts and no fresh tangible material was available to the AO. The reopening was based on a reappraisal of existing financial statements.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in-limine as non-maintainable due to the unrectified defects and the absence of the appellant. The assessee was granted liberty to file a recalling application.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the Rs.1.70 Cr. was a trade transaction for advertisement services. The Revenue failed to disprove this finding.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the relevant facts regarding the source of funds for investments and the nexus between interest-bearing loans and such investments.