ITAT Chennai Judgments — December 2017

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal found that the issues related to Section 14A disallowances required re-examination. Therefore, these issues were set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh review.

The Tribunal found that the issues related to Section 14A disallowances required re-examination. Therefore, these issues were set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh review.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E can only be made through the processing of TDS statements under Section 200A, and not through independent orders passed by the AO. Therefore, the levy of fee by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E can only be made through the processing of TDS statements under Section 200A, and not through independent orders passed by the AO. Therefore, the levy of fee by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E can only be made through the processing of TDS statements under Section 200A, and not through independent orders passed by the AO. Therefore, the levy of fee by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E can only be made through the processing of TDS statements under Section 200A, and not through independent orders passed by the AO. Therefore, the levy of fee by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E can only be made through the processing of TDS statements under Section 200A, and not through independent orders passed by the AO. Therefore, the levy of fee by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E can only be made through the processing of TDS statements under Section 200A, and not through independent orders passed by the AO. Therefore, the levy of fee by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E can only be made through the processing of TDS statements under Section 200A, and not through independent orders passed by the AO. Therefore, the levy of fee by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E can only be made through the processing of TDS statements under Section 200A, and not through independent orders passed by the AO. Therefore, the levy of fee by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E can only be made through the processing of TDS statements under Section 200A, and not through independent orders passed by the AO. Therefore, the levy of fee by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E can only be made through the processing of TDS statements under Section 200A, and not through independent orders passed by the AO. Therefore, the levy of fee by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E can only be made through the processing of TDS statements under Section 200A, and not through independent orders passed by the AO. Therefore, the levy of fee by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E can only be made through the processing of TDS statements under Section 200A, and not through independent orders passed by the AO. Therefore, the levy of fee by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E can only be made through the processing of TDS statements under Section 200A, and not through independent orders passed by the AO. Therefore, the levy of fee by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E can only be made through the processing of TDS statements under Section 200A, and not through independent orders passed by the AO. Therefore, the levy of fee by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E can only be made through the processing of TDS statements under Section 200A, and not through independent orders passed by the AO. Therefore, the levy of fee by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the second return should be considered as filed under Section 139(1) of the Act, not Section 139(5), given the extended due date for filing returns. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to support his claim of receiving the money as an agent or trustee for the company. The explanation was considered a 'make-believe' story without substantiation.

The Tribunal held that a late fee under Section 234E can only be levied through the processing of TDS statements under Section 200A, and not through independent orders. Therefore, the levy of fee by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E can only be made through the processing of TDS statements under Section 200A, and not through independent orders passed by the AO. Therefore, the levy of fee by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A must be restricted to the exempt income claimed by the assessee, following the judgments of the Delhi High Court and jurisdictional High Court. The Assessing Officer's disallowance was not justified as it exceeded the exempt income.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned, citing High Court judgments. For the late payment charges, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal agreed that closing stock valuation should be based on the stage of completion, not an average rate. However, since the CIT(A) did not call for a remand report, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude investments in subsidiary/group companies and interest expenditure directly relatable to business income from the disallowance under Section 14A. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to contradict the assessee's claims.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E can only be made through the processing of TDS statements under Section 200A, and not through independent orders passed by the AO. Therefore, the levy of fee by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should provide the assessees with the statement of Shri Prakash Kumar Jojodia, allow them to file objections, and if necessary, grant an opportunity to cross-examine him. The Assessing Officer must also verify the financials of the amalgamated company.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 40,000 as unexplained investment, as the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the source of the investment despite multiple opportunities.

The Tribunal held that interest on delayed payment of enhanced compensation for acquisition of immovable property is a revenue receipt and taxable. It cannot be exempted under Section 10(37) or considered part of the consideration for agricultural land.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require the assessee to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the VAO. The issue of agricultural income and interest income were remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its previous order for earlier assessment years, which had found the trust valid. The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency and the jurisdictional High Court's rulings on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its previous order for earlier assessment years, which had found the trust valid. The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency and the jurisdictional High Court's rulings on identical facts.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 40,000 as unexplained investment, as the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the source of the investment despite multiple opportunities.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 40,000 as unexplained investment, as the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the source of the investment despite multiple opportunities.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 40,000 as unexplained investment, as the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the source of the investment despite multiple opportunities.

The tribunal held that applying a multiplication factor derived from one property's data to another property in a different location is unscientific and not in accordance with the law. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee society's activities were not those of a cooperative bank and therefore not excluded by Section 80P(4). The Apex Court's judgment in The Citizen Co-Operative Society Ltd was analyzed, which emphasized that Section 80P is a benevolent provision to be read liberally.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment for AY 2010-11 was invalid as no addition was made on the grounds for reopening. For AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal found that cash withdrawals were sufficient to explain the deposits, thus deleting the additions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient sources for the capital introduced, considering the sale of property and income from other sources. The lower authorities' reasoning that income from an earlier year could not be a source for capital introduced in the current year was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment for AY 2010-11 was invalid as the addition made (cash deposits) did not relate to the reasons for reopening (share transactions and salary income). For AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal found that cash withdrawals were sufficient to explain the deposits, thus deleting the additions.

The Tribunal held that since the original return was processed under Section 143(1) and not scrutinized, the reassessment proceedings should be considered the first assessment. Therefore, the assessee was eligible to claim deduction under Section 10A, even if the section was incorrectly mentioned initially.

The Tribunal held that the claim of depreciation is a standard accounting practice for fair presentation of financials. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal ruled that depreciation is allowable even for entities claiming exemption under Sections 11 & 12.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to the Income Tax Rules specifically referred to windmills 'installed on or before 31st March, 2012', and the identity of the installer was not material. However, the records did not clarify whether the windmills were acquired as running assets with the land or were moved and re-installed.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee, following its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in proceeding without considering the written submissions filed by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹6,00,000 was made by the Assessing Officer disbelieving an affidavit of Smt. N. Rajalakshmi, the assessee's mother-in-law. The Tribunal reproduced the contents of the affidavit, which stated that her husband (the assessee's father-in-law) had given ₹15,00,000 to the assessee in March 2007 as an advance for purchasing a property at Kasturba Nagar, Adyar, Chennai, in the name of their grandson, Mr. J. Hariprasad. The Tribunal noted that the contents of this affidavit had not been disproved or found to be wrong by the Revenue, and nothing was brought on record to controvert its contents. The Tribunal opined that the evidential value of an affidavit can only be questioned if there is something on record to show its contents are incorrect or untrue. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the assessee had brought in sufficient evidence for the source of the sum of ₹15,00,000. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of ₹6,00,000 made in the hands of the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) relied on a previous co-ordinate bench decision, the Apex Court in The Citizen Co-Operative Society Ltd. case had addressed similar issues. The Apex Court emphasized that Section 80P is a benevolent provision to be read liberally in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that while the lower appellate authority relied on a previous decision, a subsequent Supreme Court judgment in The Citizen Co-Operative Society Ltd. case addressed similar issues. The Supreme Court's ruling, which emphasized the liberal interpretation of Section 80P to encourage the cooperative sector, was considered.