ITAT Chennai Judgments — January 2018

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 held that interest on borrowed funds advanced to a sister concern is allowable as a business expenditure, following Supreme Court precedent. The issue of gratuity fund contribution was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further examination. The arm's length price for electricity was determined, and the purchase price from the subsidiary was modified.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of property was not legally valid on March 8, 2011, due to the father's retained life interest, and became valid only after the release deed on March 22, 2012. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's argument regarding the correct sale consideration and the non-consideration of Section 54F deduction by the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Gujarat High Court's ruling in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, which allowed carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation beyond eight years under Section 32(2) as amended by the Finance Act, 2001. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior ruling in the assessee's case for an earlier assessment year. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order extending the benefit of deduction under Section 80P.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on a previous ITAT ruling for the same assessee and assessment year. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order extending the benefit of deduction under Section 80P.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Gujarat High Court's ruling in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, which allowed carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation beyond eight years under Section 32(2) as amended by the Finance Act, 2001. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte assessment order was passed without proper examination of evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh consideration after affording the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte assessment order was passed without proper examination of evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh consideration after affording the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to reconcile the party accounts with the corresponding entries in the creditors' books.

The Tribunal condoned a 7-day delay in filing the appeal. The appeal itself was then adjudicated based on the merits of the disallowance of expenses.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was liable to be quashed. The Tribunal noted a significant difference between the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment and the reasons furnished to the assessee in the letter dated 04.02.2014. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. I.T.O and the Delhi High Court's decision in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. C.I.T & Anr., the Tribunal emphasized the mandatory requirement for the AO to furnish the actual reasons recorded for reopening to the assessee when requested. The Tribunal found that the AO had deviated from this mandate by not supplying the actual reasons. The reasons supplied to the assessee were not the reasons actually recorded, which prevented the assessee from effectively presenting objections. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the AO was not justified in not furnishing the actual reasons for reopening, rendering the assessment order unsustainable. The Tribunal explicitly stated that since the reassessment order was quashed, it refrained from going into the other grounds of appeal. The operative direction was to quash the reassessment order.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of the asset from the firm to the proprietor constituted a transfer under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, attracting capital gains tax. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 1987, were crucial in this regard.

The Tribunal admitted additional grounds of appeal and considered the assessee's claim regarding the applicability of Section 50C. The Tribunal noted that the District Valuation Officer's report was based on an incorrect premise regarding an appeal under the Stamp Duty Act.

The Tribunal found that the sale agreement was unregistered and lacked details, and did not have reference in the subsequent sale deed. Therefore, the issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided lease agreements and ledger accounts showing rent paid separately to two individuals, each below the TDS threshold. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of these documents.

The Tribunal acknowledged that there were apparent factual errors in the computation of the share premium. It recalled its earlier order and directed the Assessing Officer to verify and rectify the computation based on the previously decided method.

The Tribunal acknowledged that there were apparent factual errors in the computation of the share premium. It recalled its earlier order and directed the Assessing Officer to verify and rectify the computation based on the previously decided method.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of expenditure for earning exempted income must be restricted to the extent of exempted income earned, citing Madras High Court judgments. It also confirmed that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made while computing book profit under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal found that the matter needed re-examination due to conflicting evidence and the customary practice in the trade. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the issue afresh after considering all available material and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the matter needed re-examination due to conflicting evidence and the customary practice in the trade. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the issue afresh after considering all available material and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the matter needed re-examination due to conflicting evidence and the customary practice in the trade. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the issue afresh after considering all available material and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the matter needed re-examination due to conflicting evidence and the customary practice in the trade. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the issue afresh after considering all available material and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal acknowledged that there were apparent factual errors in the computation of the share premium. It recalled its earlier order and directed the Assessing Officer to verify and rectify the computation based on the previously decided method.

The Tribunal found that the matter needed re-examination due to conflicting evidence and the customary practice in the trade. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the issue afresh after considering all available material and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the matter needed re-examination due to conflicting evidence and the customary practice in the trade. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the issue afresh after considering all available material and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal held that interest income from fixed deposits is not derived from the industrial undertaking and therefore not eligible for Section 10B deduction, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. However, the issue of whether interest expenditure on borrowed funds used for these deposits should be allowed as a deduction was restored to the Assessing Officer for examination.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona, held that a charitable institution is entitled to depreciation even if the cost of the asset was claimed as application of income. The amendment to Section 11(6) was held to be prospective.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the CIT(A) relied on fresh evidence without obtaining a remand report from the AO. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that even if the investment was allowed as application of income, depreciation is permissible under Section 32, following the Apex Court's judgment. The assessee is eligible for depreciation on the asset.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A by excluding investments in subsidiaries and by considering the assessee's own funds for dividend income. It also upheld the deletion of the provision for diminution in investment value, finding it allowable as a loss absorbed in the current year.

The Tribunal held that the change in accounting method and the consequential short declaration of income were not adequately reflected in the assessment order. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner was justified in invoking Section 263 jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that income from tickets, facility fees, and sponsorship is eligible for exemption under Section 11, following a co-ordinate bench decision. It also held that depreciation is allowable under Section 32 even if the asset cost was treated as application of income, citing an Apex Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that interest/financial charges/premium on amortization of debentures should be spread over the period of the debentures. For certain assessment years, a deduction of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- was directed to be granted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind to the material on record and did not pass a speaking order. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner rightly exercised his power under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that income from tickets, facility fees, and sponsorship is eligible for exemption under Section 11, following a co-ordinate bench decision. It also held that depreciation is allowable under Section 32 even if the asset cost was treated as application of income, citing an Apex Court judgment.

The Tribunal found that the matter needed re-examination due to conflicting evidence and the customary practice in the trade. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the issue afresh after considering all available material and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal held that a charitable institution is entitled to depreciation even if the cost of the asset was claimed as application of income. The amendment to Section 11(6) was also held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the CIT(A) relied on fresh evidence without obtaining a remand report from the AO. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the approval for EOU status was ratified by the Board of Approval, making the assessee eligible for Section 10B deduction. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) was restricted to the actual cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 on a specific day, and the ground regarding purchases was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal found merit in some of the assessee's arguments, noting that the valuation report was not available to the AO during assessment and that the assessee had retained a portion of the land. The Tribunal also stated that certain additions regarding stamp duty expenses and discount on purchase needed genuine explanation and detailed examination.

The Tribunal held that even if the cost of an asset is claimed as application of income, a charitable institution is still entitled to claim depreciation on that asset. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal held that, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona, a charitable institution is entitled to depreciation even if the cost of the asset was claimed as application of income in the year of acquisition.

The Tribunal held that the computation of book profit under Section 115JB should be made without resorting to the disallowance computed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. This followed a Delhi Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A could be made as the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction. The issue of customs duty deduction was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following established rules and precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessee made a bonafide error and rectified it promptly. The levy of penalty was not warranted as the Revenue had all the necessary details and the assessee's conduct demonstrated no intention to conceal income.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of expenditure for earning exempted income must be restricted to the extent of exempted income earned, citing Madras High Court judgments. It also confirmed that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made while computing book profit under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that the 'Adangal' extract is a crucial document to prove cultivation in Tamil Nadu. Since this document was not properly considered by the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals), the matter needs to be re-examined.