ITAT Chennai Judgments — January 2018

The Tribunal held that the AO had complied with previous directions and that the income of the subsidiary, being a separate legal entity incorporated in a different country, could not be clubbed with the assessee's income. The Principal CIT failed to point out a specific error prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly appreciated the facts. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination after providing the assessee with adequate opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO had complied with previous directions and that the income of the subsidiary, being a separate legal entity incorporated in a different country, could not be clubbed with the assessee's income. The Principal CIT failed to point out a specific error prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee should normally possess documents proving the conversion of property, the issue required further examination. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh inquiry.

The Tribunal held that income from sources other than the primary business activity cannot be deducted from the cost of production for valuing closing stock. Consistency in following a wrong accounting method does not make it correct.

The Tribunal found the facts in the current assessment year to be different from a previous year where a 10% disallowance was upheld. It noted that payments were made to close relatives of the Managing Director, raising doubts about genuineness. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal allowed the additional grounds, following its own prior decision. The issue was remanded to the AO/TPO to rework the profit level indicator excluding depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the AO had complied with previous directions and that the income of the subsidiary, being a separate legal entity incorporated in a different country, could not be clubbed with the assessee's income. The Principal CIT failed to point out a specific error prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that advertisement expenditure, even if segregated for a particular project, promotes the overall business and goodwill of the company. Therefore, it cannot be disallowed solely because income from that specific project had not yet accrued.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding Connect Cargo Pvt. Ltd. and Tiger Logistics India Private Limited, directing them to be considered as comparables. For Gordon Woodroffee Logistics Ltd., the issue was remanded for fresh examination. The grounds related to NR International Limited and Speedy Multimodes Limited were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the boat jetty was previously held to be a temporary structure eligible for 100% depreciation, the replacement of parts also qualifies for the same rate. Furthermore, in the absence of any exempted income, no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors by providing their names, addresses, confirmations, and IT return details. The AO should have made assessments in the hands of the creditors if creditworthiness was doubted.

The Tribunal held that the replacement of ring frames constituted capital expenditure, reversing the CIT(A)'s finding. It also held that DEPB credit, without profit on sale, should be excluded for computing business profits, thus reversing the CIT(A)'s decision on Section 80HHC.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere as the assessee had written off the amounts based on government orders and the Revenue failed to dislodge the findings. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as time-barred.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere as the assessee had written off the amounts based on government orders and the Revenue failed to dislodge the findings. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as time-barred.

The Tribunal held that a small technical breach of not depositing the remaining sale proceeds in the capital gains scheme account should not disentitle the assessee from the benefit of Section 54F, especially when the amount was held in a nationalized bank and utilized for construction.

The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's disallowance under Section 14A to be erroneous for not identifying specific expenses. Regarding Section 73, the Tribunal noted that losses from currency and nifty futures were not considered by the lower authorities and remitted the issue for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessment was barred by limitation as it was based on a change of opinion and no fresh material was available. The auditor's omission to report TDS non-compliance in Form 3CD did not automatically imply negligence on the part of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the domestic purchases from a resident associated enterprise were not international transactions. It further ruled that no adjustment could be made on account of advertisement and marketing expenditure as the assessee's operating profit margin was already higher than comparables.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere as the assessee had written off the amounts based on government orders and the Revenue failed to dislodge the findings. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as time-barred.

The Tribunal noted that the High Court had remanded the matter back to the DIT. As a result, the assessee's appeal before the Tribunal had become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the enhancement of income in the hands of the assessee for compensation received by her power of attorney holder was a double addition, as it was already taxed in the hands of the power of attorney holder. Regarding the sale of land, the Tribunal followed a previous decision that classified similar land as agricultural, thus not attracting capital gains tax.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere as the assessee had written off the amounts based on government orders and the Revenue failed to dislodge the findings. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as time-barred.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere as the assessee had written off the amounts based on government orders and the Revenue failed to dislodge the findings. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as time-barred.

The Tribunal held that the enhancement of income in the hands of the assessee for compensation received by her power of attorney holder was a double addition, as it was already taxed in the hands of the power of attorney holder. Regarding the sale of land, the Tribunal followed a previous decision that classified similar land as agricultural, thus not attracting capital gains tax.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere as the assessee had written off the amounts based on government orders and the Revenue failed to dislodge the findings. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as time-barred.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere as the assessee had written off the amounts based on government orders and the Revenue failed to dislodge the findings. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as time-barred.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not rectified the defect in the appeal filing. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the enhancement of income in the hands of the assessee for compensation received by her power of attorney holder was a double addition, as it was already taxed in the hands of the power of attorney holder. Regarding the sale of land, the Tribunal followed a previous decision that classified similar land as agricultural, thus not attracting capital gains tax.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to the Indian Medical Council Regulations prohibiting gifts to doctors is prospective from 14.12.2009. Expenses incurred before this date were allowed, while those after were disallowed as they violated the regulations and were hit by the explanation to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to the Indian Medical Council Regulations prohibiting gifts to doctors is prospective from 14.12.2009. Expenses incurred before this date were allowed, while those after were disallowed as they violated the regulations and were hit by the explanation to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal has corrected a clerical error in its previous order. The Assessment Year mentioned in the cause title of the order has been amended from 2011-12 to 2012-13.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the income claimed as exempt by the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that, following the Apex Court's decision, a charitable institution is eligible for depreciation even if the asset's cost was allowed as application of income. Income under Section 11 should be computed commercially, allowing depreciation.

The tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following judicial precedents, the penalty was cancelled on this technical ground.

The Tribunal held that since the foreign currency loan was utilized for acquiring capital assets, the exchange loss arising from restatement of the loan on the balance sheet date would also be on capital account. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on this portion of the exchange loss.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT notified the prescribed form for Section 194C(7) only on 15.10.2010, which was not applicable for the period in question. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as there was no new or tangible material to justify it after a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) was already completed. The payment was for installation services rendered outside India, not technical services taxable in India.

The tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following judicial precedents, the levy of penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient own funds, and the investment in the subsidiary company was for business purposes. Therefore, the deletion of the disallowance by the CIT(Appeals) was justified.

The Tribunal held that, following the Apex Court's decision, a charitable institution is eligible for depreciation even if the asset's cost was allowed as application of income. Income under Section 11 should be computed commercially, allowing depreciation.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had dismissed the assessee's explanation as an afterthought without properly considering the supporting documents, including deposit declarations found in impounded survey materials. Therefore, the issue requires fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted contradictory findings regarding the currency in which expenditures were incurred and restored the matter to the AO for fresh examination. The Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections were treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted contradictory findings regarding the currency in which expenditures were incurred and restored the matter to the AO for fresh examination. The Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections were treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted contradictory findings regarding the currency in which expenditures were incurred and restored the matter to the AO for fresh examination. The Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections were treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal allowed the claim for unsuccessful project promotion expenses. However, it sustained the disallowance of interest on Ways and Means advance, holding that it was capital in nature. The appeals were partly allowed.