ITAT Chennai Judgments — May 2018

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the fresh evidence produced by the assessee and called for a remand report from the AO. The matter was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the issue needed re-adjudication by the AO. The AO was directed to verify loan details, interest payments, and the company's articles of association regarding lending powers. If loans were taken and used for lending, the interest paid should be allowed against interest income.

The Tribunal held that the issue needed re-adjudication by the AO. The AO was directed to verify loan details, interest payments, and the company's articles of association regarding lending powers. If loans were taken and used for lending, the interest paid should be allowed against interest income.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner rightly exercised his powers under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer failed to examine the income generated from the business as per books. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal held that estimation of profit was unjustified when books of account were not rejected.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not carefully verify the facts of the case laws cited. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal allowed the ground related to the disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund remitted before the due date of filing the return. However, it dismissed the grounds concerning risk adjustment and working capital adjustment, finding insufficient data to support the assessee's claims.

The Tribunal held that the DRP erred in directing an upward adjustment on the aggregate of international transactions without restricting it to the proportion of such transactions with Associated Enterprises. The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for economic adjustment for customs duty.

The Tribunal held that the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) depends on whether the recipients of the interest income had declared it in their returns and paid tax. Since the lower authorities had not verified this, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The tribunal held that the stockbroker's statement, without an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be the sole basis for assessment. However, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the share transactions.

The tribunal held that the stockbroker's statement, without an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be the sole basis for assessment. However, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the share transactions.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner rightly exercised his powers under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer failed to examine the income generated from the business as per books. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal held that estimation of profit was unjustified when books of account were not rejected.

The Tribunal held that the sale of shares was a solitary transaction and the assessee was an investor, not a trader, thus allowing the capital gains treatment. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found that the disallowance was not correctly computed and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which allowed deduction for employee contributions remitted before the due date of filing the return of income, was applicable. Therefore, the addition made by the Revenue was not sustained.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee deposited employee's contribution towards PF/ESI after the due date but before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance could be made. This was in line with the Jurisdictional High Court's decision, which relied on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that interest disallowance was justified as per Section 43B as it was not paid in the relevant year. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to demonstrate that the higher rate was calculated as per the provisions of the Companies Act, thus upholding the lower authorities' decision.

The Tribunal held that additional depreciation can be carried forward if assets are put to use for less than six months, and disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted in the absence of exempt income. Belated remittance of employee contributions before the return filing due date is allowable.

The Tribunal held that additional depreciation can be carried forward if assets are put to use for less than six months, and disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted in the absence of exempt income. Belated remittance of employee contributions before the return filing due date is allowable.

The tribunal held that export commission paid to non-resident agents outside India does not attract TDS provisions, following a High Court decision. For pollution treatment expenses, the tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that the recipient offered income for tax and remanded the issue for fresh verification.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the advances were indeed for commercial expediency as evidenced by the purchase of power from the sister concern. The Revenue failed to dislodge the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that additional depreciation can be carried forward if assets are put to use for less than six months, and disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted in the absence of exempt income. Belated remittance of employee contributions before the return filing due date is allowable.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for an earlier assessment year was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination based on agreements. The Tribunal found the CIT(A) had overlooked this previous order and decided to follow the same course of action.

The Tribunal held that additional depreciation can be carried forward if assets are put to use for less than six months, and disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted in the absence of exempt income. Belated remittance of employee contributions before the return filing due date is allowable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the allowance of employees' PF/ESI contributions and rental payments where payees had already paid taxes.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection, noting a mistake in the appeal's tax effect. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed both on merit and due to the tax monetary limit.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the allowance of employees' PF/ESI contributions and rental payments where payees had already paid taxes.

The Tribunal found that the facts and circumstances were not properly verified and required re-examination. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh verification.