ITAT Chennai Judgments — February 2018

The Tribunal considered the appeals filed by the assessee against the rejection of registration under Section 12AA and approval under Section 80G(5). The core issue was the CIT's error in not granting these registrations/approvals.

The Tribunal, considering the unserved notice and the adjournment, concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal, considering the lack of interest from the assessee in pursuing the appeal, dismissed the appeal in limine.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C applies to unexplained expenditure and that such expenditure cannot be claimed as a deduction. The assessment was found to be within the limitation period.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing despite receiving notice. Following precedent, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal in limine.

The Tribunal considered the appeals filed by the assessee against the rejection of registration under Section 12AA and approval under Section 80G(5). The core issue was the CIT's error in not granting these registrations/approvals.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding commercial expediency and the potential benefit to the group. However, to ensure a comprehensive examination in light of Supreme Court decisions, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the AO for fresh examination, directing the AO to provide an opportunity to the assessee and pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the land sold by the assessee at Seerapalayam Village was not agricultural land. It also found that the lands purchased by the assessee at Kodangipalayam and Devarayapuram Villages were not agricultural in nature. Consequently, the conditions for exemption under Section 54B were not met.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim for expenses incurred for maintaining corporate status and discharging legal obligations. It also held that exchange rate fluctuation represented a revenue receipt taxable as income.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10A is to be reckoned from the year the undertaking begins to manufacture or produce software. Since the assessee commenced software manufacturing in AY 2000-01, the claim up to AY 2009-10 (the 10th year) was valid.