ITAT Chennai Judgments — July 2018

The Tribunal held that the income from both leasing space and providing maintenance services should be considered as income from business. The contemporaneous nature of agreements, the nature of the premises, and the assessee's business object demonstrated an intention to provide space as part of its business.

The Tribunal held that the income from both leasing space and providing maintenance services should be considered as income from business. The contemporaneous nature of agreements, the nature of the premises, and the assessee's business object demonstrated an intention to provide space as part of its business.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's petition for condonation of delay, finding no sufficient cause explained for the inordinate delay. The Tribunal noted the assessee's careless and lassitude approach in filing the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the income from both leasing space and providing maintenance services should be considered as income from business. The contemporaneous nature of agreements, the nature of the premises, and the assessee's business object demonstrated an intention to provide space as part of its business.

The Tribunal held that payments for marketing and procurement services to overseas agents are not 'fees for technical services' and thus Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable. The matter regarding disallowance under Rule 14A was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since the CIT(A) followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision, there was no reason to interfere. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal agreed that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue could not be sustained.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect for all assessment years was below the specified limit. The Revenue was unable to demonstrate otherwise, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the admitted income fell within the definition of 'undisclosed income' under Section 271AAB. Since the return was not filed within the due date, the assessee could not avail the benefit of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 271AAB.

The Tribunal held that a fresh look by the Assessing Officer was necessary to determine the eligibility for deduction under Section 10A. The Assessing Officer must consider the certificate from Software Technology Parks of India submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 21,58,600/- as unexplained sources. The assessee failed to provide any explanation or appear before the appellate authorities.

The Tribunal held that the entire sale consideration of ₹18,31,00,000 should be considered for computing capital gains in the impugned assessment year, as the escrow amount did not constitute deferred consideration. Regarding expenses, the Tribunal allowed a portion of the administrative and other expenses necessary for maintaining corporate status but disallowed manufacturing expenses.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee followed the cash basis of accounting, the matching principle was not applicable. Disparities in interest receipts and payments arose due to the accounting method, not selective interest charging.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the assessee incurred capital/revenue expenditure for R&D. If ineligible for weighted deduction, normal depreciation under Section 32 or revenue expenditure deduction should be granted.

The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had thoroughly examined the actual expenditure incurred by the assessee. Following its own previous ruling, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular instructed officers to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.

The Tribunal noted the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which instructs officers to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs. The Tribunal considered this circular binding on the Revenue's officers.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs officers to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee ought to have recorded the transactions and deducted TDS. However, to ensure no double taxation, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify if the actor had paid tax on the received amounts. If tax was paid by the actor, the addition under Section 40(a)(ia) would be deleted; otherwise, the AO's original order would be reinstated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee ought to have recorded the transactions and deducted TDS. However, to ensure no double taxation, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify if the actor had paid tax on the received amounts. If tax was paid by the actor, the addition under Section 40(a)(ia) would be deleted; otherwise, the AO's original order would be reinstated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee ought to have recorded the transactions and deducted TDS. However, to ensure no double taxation, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify if the actor had paid tax on the received amounts. If tax was paid by the actor, the addition under Section 40(a)(ia) would be deleted; otherwise, the AO's original order would be reinstated.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s deletion of additions, considering the assessee's substantial returned income and cash withdrawals. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The decision was based on maintaining consistency in treatment between co-owners, as the co-owner uncle's return was processed under Section 143(1) without scrutiny.

The Tribunal held that the assessee ought to have recorded the transactions and deducted TDS. However, to ensure no double taxation, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify if the actor had paid tax on the received amounts. If tax was paid by the actor, the addition under Section 40(a)(ia) would be deleted; otherwise, the AO's original order would be reinstated.

The Tribunal found a potential mistake in the ITR-6 entry regarding the loss. It decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh examination and determination of the correct total income.

The Tribunal found that the circumstances surrounding the cancellation of the power of attorney and the subsequent transactions needed further examination. Both authorities' orders were set aside, and the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's appeal due to a misunderstanding of legal advice. For the Section 80-IA issue, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of agreements. The deduction under Section 35D was confirmed in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's appeal due to a misunderstanding of legal advice. For the Section 80-IA issue, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of agreements. The deduction under Section 35D was confirmed in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer gave the assessee only five days to furnish evidence, which was insufficient. The lower authorities' orders were set aside, and the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the CBDT's circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that TDS provisions under Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable as the services were rendered abroad and the income was not taxable in India. It also held that the disallowance under Section 14A was erroneous as no expenditure was specifically incurred for earning exempt income.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) did not have the power to remit the matter to the AO as that power was omitted. However, the Tribunal itself has the power to remit for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the ALP determination by the revenue authorities was erroneous as it did not follow prescribed methods. For other grounds, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matters back to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to provide necessary evidence.

The Tribunal found it improper for the AO to obtain a letter from the assessee waiving their right to appeal. Since the capital gain was already taxed for AY 2012-13 and the AO accepted it, reopening the assessment for AY 2011-12 was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s deletion of additions, considering the assessee's substantial returned income and cash withdrawals. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that computer peripherals such as printers, scanners, and UPS are integral parts of a computer system and are eligible for the higher depreciation rate of 60%. The CIT(A)'s reliance on High Court judgments was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed the jurisdictional High Court decision regarding ESI contribution, dismissing the Revenue's grounds on this issue. For other issues where the assessee failed to provide sufficient proof to the AO, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed the jurisdictional High Court decision regarding ESI contribution, dismissing the Revenue's grounds on this issue. For other issues where the assessee failed to provide sufficient proof to the AO, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding that the facts and circumstances of the case had not been properly examined by the lower authorities. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of car parking charges was excessive as the assessee had only admitted to collecting charges for six flats, and purchasers denied paying such charges for other flats. Similarly, additions for additional sale consideration were deleted due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of car parking charges was excessive as the assessee had only admitted to collecting charges for six flats, and purchasers denied paying such charges for other flats. Similarly, additions for additional sale consideration were deleted due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred by the assessee to make leased premises fit for business, even if it enhances profit-earning capacity, is revenue expenditure if the asset cannot be retrieved by the assessee at the end of the lease term. The CIT(Appeals) order allowing the expenditure as revenue was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred by the assessee to make leased premises fit for business, even if it enhances profit-earning capacity, is revenue expenditure if the asset cannot be retrieved by the assessee at the end of the lease term. The CIT(Appeals) order allowing the expenditure as revenue was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment is a curable defect. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to dispose of the objections and then re-examine the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred by the assessee to make leased premises fit for business, even if it enhances profit-earning capacity, is revenue expenditure if the asset cannot be retrieved by the assessee at the end of the lease term. The CIT(Appeals) order allowing the expenditure as revenue was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred by the assessee to make leased premises fit for business, even if it enhances profit-earning capacity, is revenue expenditure if the asset cannot be retrieved by the assessee at the end of the lease term. The CIT(Appeals) order allowing the expenditure as revenue was confirmed.

The Tribunal found the facts similar to previous cases involving the same company. It held that the genuineness of the transactions and the claim for exemption required a fresh re-examination by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). Investments not generating exempt income cannot be included in the calculation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfied the conditions of Section 54F as payments for the new residential house were made within the time limit, and non-completion was due to the builder's failure. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim.