ITAT Chennai Judgments — April 2018

The Tribunal considered the prayer of the assessee's representative and, with no objection from the revenue, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the prayer of the assessee's representative and, with no objection from the revenue, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that additional depreciation was allowable based on the High Court's ratio. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s view on UPS being part of computer hardware and the allowability of weighted deduction for R&D expenses.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to registration under Section 12AA. The Tribunal noted that the amendment to Clause 3(j) was made through a General Body Meeting and not through court proceedings, as stipulated by Clause 11 of the Trust Deed, making the amendment invalid for the purpose of adjudication. However, the Tribunal found that even the unamended Clause 3(j) did not violate Section 11(1)(a). It stated that the clause allowed awarding scholarships or stipends in India, and even if a student chose to study abroad, it did not mean the Trust's objects were being executed outside the country. Additionally, Clause 15(c) of the Trust Deed explicitly barred any activity of the Trust from being carried out outside India. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 11(1)(a). The CIT(E) was directed to grant registration under Section 12AA. The Tribunal also noted that any violations concerning Sections 11 to 13 would be open for examination during regular assessment.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as the assessee had disclosed the transaction and acted under a bonafide belief that it was a business transaction. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly followed the decision of a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. Therefore, the Tribunal saw no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal found that relevant materials were not fully appreciated or furnished. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination and decision.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 14A, finding that the assessee did not adequately demonstrate that no expenditure was incurred for earning dividend income. The issue regarding power charges was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal directed the AO to refer the property valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer. The assessee argued for averaging the sale price and guideline value, citing a High Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of agricultural land was an afterthought and not supported by evidence. However, the claim for deduction under Section 54F, which was adduced as additional evidence, was not addressed by the CIT(A). Therefore, this specific issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment was not justified when no new material was available. It also ruled that depreciation is allowable on assets whose cost was allowed as application of income. Other issues were confirmed based on previous orders or specific facts.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment was not justified when no new material was available. It also ruled that depreciation is allowable on assets whose cost was allowed as application of income. Other issues were confirmed based on previous orders or specific facts.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment was not justified when no new material was available. It also ruled that depreciation is allowable on assets whose cost was allowed as application of income. Other issues were confirmed based on previous orders or specific facts.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment was not justified when no new material was available. It also ruled that depreciation is allowable on assets whose cost was allowed as application of income. Other issues were confirmed based on previous orders or specific facts.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment was not justified when no new material was available. It also ruled that depreciation is allowable on assets whose cost was allowed as application of income. Other issues were confirmed based on previous orders or specific facts.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment was not justified when no new material was available. It also ruled that depreciation is allowable on assets whose cost was allowed as application of income. Other issues were confirmed based on previous orders or specific facts.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment was not justified when no new material was available. It also ruled that depreciation is allowable on assets whose cost was allowed as application of income. Other issues were confirmed based on previous orders or specific facts.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment was not justified when no new material was available. It also ruled that depreciation is allowable on assets whose cost was allowed as application of income. Other issues were confirmed based on previous orders or specific facts.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment was not justified when no new material was available. It also ruled that depreciation is allowable on assets whose cost was allowed as application of income. Other issues were confirmed based on previous orders or specific facts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's investment in bonds was made from the sale proceeds of a plot sold on 08.09.2010, allowing the Section 54EC claim. For Section 54F, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the investment in the residential property and grant the benefit if evidence of investment within two years from the sale date is produced.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment without new material is not justified. It also ruled that accumulated income not used for its intended purpose is not eligible for exemption and that depreciation is allowable on assets whose cost was treated as application of income.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment was not justified when no new material was available. It also ruled that depreciation is allowable on assets whose cost was allowed as application of income. Other issues were confirmed based on previous orders or specific facts.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee establishes investment of the entire capital gains in the purchase of land within the stipulated period, the completion of construction is immaterial for claiming deduction under Section 54F. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided adequate evidence of tax payment in Egypt through employer certificates and Form 16, and therefore was entitled to claim exemption under the DTAA. The Assessing Officer should have verified any disputes with the employer.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order lacked clarity on specific violations and the number of units affected. It directed the AO to re-examine the claim for proportionate deduction, considering the ratio of a High Court decision, and to exclude the land interest for non-compliant units.

The Tribunal held that the provision for yield testing was an unascertainable liability and therefore not deductible in the current year. The deduction would be allowable in the year the liability was crystallized and paid.

The Tribunal held that once an issue has been concluded by its order in two rounds of litigation, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment under Section 147, even if new material is found during a search.

The Tribunal followed its previous order for the assessment year 2010-11 in the assessee's own case. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to verify if the built-up area of each flat was less than 1500 sq.ft.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of interest-free funds was not sufficiently supported by material. Consequently, all additions were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that lease rentals and electricity charges are business income, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in the assessee's own case. Compensation received was also treated as business income.

The Tribunal considered the prayer of the assessee's counsel and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should only be on investments yielding exempt income. Regarding interest expenditure, it was held that if the assessee has sufficient own interest-free funds, the advances are presumed to be from those funds, and no interest disallowance is warranted.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal. For one loan, the addition was restricted, and for bank account credits, the addition was deleted based on a previous similar ruling. For other unexplained credits, the addition was sustained as the assessee failed to provide sufficient details.

The Tribunal found that the Assessment Order lacked necessary facts to adjudicate the issue of client code modifications and speculative losses. The matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to substantiate their claim.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to explain the source of the funds. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the Assessment Order lacked necessary facts to adjudicate the issue of client code modifications and speculative losses. The matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to substantiate their claim.

The Tribunal found that the Assessment Order lacked necessary facts to adjudicate the issue of client code modifications and speculative losses. The matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to substantiate their claim.

The Tribunal found that the Assessment Order lacked necessary facts to adjudicate the issue of client code modifications and speculative losses. The matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to substantiate their claim.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Supreme Court ruling in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd., which stated that Section 10AA deductions are to be computed independently for the eligible undertaking. The Tribunal also deleted the Section 14A disallowance, noting the AO's lack of finding that expenditure was incurred for earning exempt income.

The Tribunal held that if the NRI recipient has paid tax in India, Section 195 cannot be invoked. The AO was directed to verify tax payment by the NRI and delete the addition if tax was paid.

The Tribunal held that a charitable institution eligible for exemption under Section 11 is entitled to claim depreciation for arriving at its net income. Following the Apex Court's decision, the disallowance was set aside.

The Tribunal confirmed the estimation of profit at 5.5% on the entire turnover, including bogus purchases and fictitious sales. This decision was based on previous orders of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the repayment of the Rs. 45 lakhs mortgage loan by the assessees, who were partners in the firm that availed the loan, does not constitute an addition to the cost of acquisition or an expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer of the property. The property was merely offered as security by the grandmother for a loan taken by the firm, and the assessees, as partners, were liable to repay it. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s disallowance of this claim was upheld. Regarding the sale consideration, the Tribunal noted that the assessees had adopted the stamp duty guideline value of Rs. 2,10,00,000 as per Section 50C. The AO had referred the matter to the VO, who determined the cost of acquisition as on April 1, 1981, and the FMV as on July 13, 2010. While the AO used the VO's valuation for the cost of acquisition, he did not adopt the VO's FMV for July 13, 2010, opting instead for the stamp duty value. Citing the decision in Vijay P. Karnik vs. ITO, the Tribunal held that a valuation report obtained by the AO, even if the reference was questionable, is relevant and admissible evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the fair market value determined by the Valuation Officer as on July 13, 2010, for computing the capital gains. The grounds related to the mortgage loan were dismissed, and the grounds related to the sale consideration were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that substantial compliance with Section 54 can be made before the extended due date for filing the return under Section 139(4). The case was remanded to the AO for fresh verification of whether a house was constructed within the extended due date and the genuineness of claimed expenses.

The Tribunal treated the appeal against the PCIT's order as dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was dismissed as infructuous because the underlying assessment order no longer existed.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. This decision was based on the assessee's non-appearance and lack of interest in prosecuting the case.

The Tribunal found that the applicability of the Apex Court's decision depended on the specific provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act versus the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. As the records were insufficient to determine this, the issue required fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the repayment of the Rs. 45 lakhs mortgage loan by the assessees, who were partners in the firm that availed the loan, does not constitute an addition to the cost of acquisition or an expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer of the property. The property was merely offered as security by the grandmother for a loan taken by the firm, and the assessees, as partners, were liable to repay it. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s disallowance of this claim was upheld. Regarding the sale consideration, the Tribunal noted that the assessees had adopted the stamp duty guideline value of Rs. 2,10,00,000 as per Section 50C. The AO had referred the matter to the VO, who determined the cost of acquisition as on April 1, 1981, and the FMV as on July 13, 2010. While the AO used the VO's valuation for the cost of acquisition, he did not adopt the VO's FMV for July 13, 2010, opting instead for the stamp duty value. Citing the decision in Vijay P. Karnik vs. ITO, the Tribunal held that a valuation report obtained by the AO, even if the reference was questionable, is relevant and admissible evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the fair market value determined by the Valuation Officer as on July 13, 2010, for computing the capital gains. The grounds related to the mortgage loan were dismissed, and the grounds related to the sale consideration were partly allowed.

The Tribunal acknowledged that depreciation can be claimed on capital assets even if their cost was allowed as application of income, citing Supreme Court precedent. However, due to lack of specific asset details, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal found that the applicability of the Apex Court's decision depended on the specific provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act versus the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. As the records were insufficient to determine this, the issue required fresh consideration.