ITAT Chennai Judgments — May 2018

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had now produced various details before it, which were not available to the Assessing Officer. Considering the Revenue's concession, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal due to non-rectification of defects and non-prosecution. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

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. This is based on a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be treated as a cooperative society and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), following previous consistent decisions of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in automatically applying Rule 8D without examining the assessee's own computation of expenses for earning exempt income. The matter was remitted back to the AO for re-verification. Similarly, the disallowance of interest expenditure was also remitted for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that by virtue of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the appeals of the Revenue would not lie before the Tribunal as the tax effect was less than Rs. 10,00,000. No specific ground related to audit objections was raised by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that for initiating proceedings under Section 153C, there must be some material like money, bullion, jewellery, books of account, or documents found during the search that relates to the other person. Since no such material was found against the assessee, the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was bad in law.

The Tribunal held that once a subsidy received by a partnership firm has been assessed in the hands of the firm, the same amount cannot be taxed again in the hands of an individual partner. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in automatically applying Rule 8D without examining the assessee's own computation of expenses for earning exempt income. The matter was remitted back to the AO for re-verification. Similarly, the disallowance of interest expenditure was also remitted for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of royalty payment based on a previous year's order. For Section 14A, it was held that disallowance should be restricted to exempted income, aligning with the CIT(A)'s order. The transfer to a Reserve Fund was held to be an application of income and thus taxable.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in automatically applying Rule 8D without examining the assessee's own computation of expenses for earning exempt income. The matter was remitted back to the AO for re-verification. Similarly, the disallowance of interest expenditure was also remitted for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in automatically applying Rule 8D without examining the assessee's own computation of expenses for earning exempt income. The matter was remitted back to the AO for re-verification. Similarly, the disallowance of interest expenditure was also remitted for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that income corresponding to services for which invoices were raised in advance, but services were yet to be rendered, would arise only in the year the services are actually performed. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer for the impugned assessment year was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that for initiating proceedings under Section 153C, there must be some material like money, bullion, jewellery, books of account, or documents found during the search that relates to the other person. Since no such material was found against the assessee, the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was bad in law.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of labour charges as no separate payment was made and the invoice was consolidated. For clearing & forwarding charges, the issue was remanded to the AO for verification based on Form 26A. The disallowance of interest on the partner's debit balance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54 was not legally justifiable as the funds were not utilized for constructing the residential asset and appeared to be a tailor-made transaction. The assessee had also accepted the disallowance before the AO and did not appeal this specific issue before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the addition for silver was not warranted as the assessee had declared a significant portion in her Wealth Tax return and no unexplained income was found. The addition for diamond jewelry was also deleted as it was purchased abroad and there was no evidence of using Indian income for its acquisition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all necessary details and a plausible explanation for the non-completion of construction. The non-completion was not due to the assessee's fault, and no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars was found.

The Tribunal held that unless there is a finding of partition under Section 171(1) of the Act, a HUF continues to be treated as such. Since no such order existed, the capital gains on the sale of HUF property should be assessed in the hands of the HUF, not the individuals.

The Tribunal held that unless there is a finding of partition under Section 171(1) of the Act, a HUF continues to be treated as such. Since no such order existed, the capital gains on the sale of HUF property should be assessed in the hands of the HUF, not the individuals.

The Tribunal held that the issue is settled in favor of the assessee by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of claiming depreciation on assets where the entire cost was claimed as application of income is settled in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

The Tribunal held that the issue is settled in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on capital assets, where the entire cost was claimed as application of income, is settled in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that since the assessee had produced some evidence of TDS compliance and the recipients had disclosed income, the issue should be restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that unless there is a finding of partition under Section 171(1) of the Act, a HUF continues to be treated as such. Since no such order existed, the capital gains on the sale of HUF property should be assessed in the hands of the HUF, not the individuals.

The Tribunal held that unless there is a finding of partition under Section 171(1) of the Act, a HUF continues to be treated as such. Since no such order was passed, the capital gains on the sale of HUF property should be assessed in the hands of the HUF, not the individuals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice, considering the financial constraints of the assessee. The matter was directed to be decided on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by its own earlier decision for the assessment year 2012-13, which followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as they could not controvert the previous findings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete both additions. The project expenses were considered a clerical error, and the deemed dividend was held not to be applicable due to commercial expediency, following previous Tribunal rulings in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's financial constraints and in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The AO was directed to admit any evidence produced by the assessee to establish their claims.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions, dismissed the grounds related to the establishment in Malaysia not being a Permanent Establishment and the classification of income. However, other grounds regarding disallowance of management fees, capital vs. business loss, and Rule 8D disallowance were remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions, dismissed the grounds related to the establishment in Malaysia not being a Permanent Establishment and the classification of income. However, other grounds regarding disallowance of management fees, loss on sale of investments, and Rule 8D disallowances were remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide quantitative stock details but allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of details under Section 44AB.

The Tribunal held that the AO is mandated to dispose of preliminary objections by passing a speaking order before proceeding with assessments after re-opening. The appeals were restored to the AO for compliance.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly examined each credit entry, distinguishing between opening balances, genuine cash credits supported by bank statements and corresponding entries in the creditor's books, and balances appearing in the creditor's books which are not taxable under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be provided an opportunity to present its case on merits. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh.

The Tribunal held that the AO is mandated to dispose of preliminary objections by passing a speaking order before proceeding with assessments after re-opening. The appeals were restored to the AO for compliance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be provided an opportunity to present its case on merits. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions, dismissed the grounds related to the establishment in Malaysia not being a Permanent Establishment and the classification of income. However, other grounds regarding disallowance of management fees, loss on sale of investments, and Rule 8D disallowances were remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the nomination fees were a genuine business expenditure incurred to secure business and avoid competition. The AO and CIT(A) cannot sit in judgment over the business decisions of the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee to present all evidence. This was done considering the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on limitation grounds and for the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that the nomination fees were a genuine business expenditure incurred to secure business and avoid competition. The AO and CIT(A) cannot sit in judgment over the business decisions of the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to represent its appeals before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that when assessees voluntarily offer income in revised returns and explain the source (gifts from relatives), penalty proceedings are not warranted. The Assessing Officer's decision to drop the penalty was based on a valid interpretation of Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that when assessees voluntarily offer income in revised returns and explain the source (gifts from relatives), penalty proceedings are not warranted. The Assessing Officer's decision to drop the penalty was based on a valid interpretation of law and precedent.

The Tribunal held that when assessees voluntarily offer income in revised returns and explain the source (gifts from relatives), penalty proceedings are not warranted. The Assessing Officer's decision to drop the penalty was based on a valid interpretation of law and precedent.

The Tribunal held that when assessees voluntarily offer income in revised returns and explain the source (gifts from relatives), penalty proceedings are not warranted. The Assessing Officer's decision to drop the penalty was based on a valid interpretation of law and precedent.

The Tribunal held that when assessees voluntarily offer income in revised returns and explain the source (gifts from relatives), penalty proceedings are not warranted. The Assessing Officer's decision to drop the penalty was based on a valid interpretation of law and precedent.