ITAT Chennai Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not considered a previous tribunal decision regarding the eligibility of unapproved expenditure for deduction under Section 35(1)(iv). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal dismissed both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. For AY 2013-14, the issue of whether investments were made from borrowed funds was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal dismissed both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. For AY 2013-14, the issue of whether investments were made from borrowed funds was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was not clearly on record. Additionally, the source for a portion of the jewellery remained unexplained. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal dismissed both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. For AY 2013-14, the issue of whether investments were made from borrowed funds was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer needs to re-examine the TDS credit for royalty income and the tax credit for ₹7,14,097/-. For the royalty income from Panasonic Appliances India, the issue was remitted back for re-examination. However, the reimbursement of employee costs was confirmed as fee for technical services.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 153C was questionable due to a lack of clear satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer. The matter of the source of the jewellery also required re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was questionable due to a lack of clear satisfaction recorded by the AO. The matter of the source of the jewellery also required re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the salary received by a non-resident sea-farer for services rendered outside India, even if credited to an NRO account in India, should not be taxed in India, following a CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that as per the revised CBDT circular, appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs are not maintainable. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the investigation reports, which were used against the assessee, should have been presented to the assessee for rebuttal, adhering to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter requires a fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee withdrew the claim for weighted deduction, the issue of commission paid for obtaining that deduction becomes irrelevant. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission was deleted.

The Tribunal held that a license to use computer software falls under the definition of computer software for depreciation purposes. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for depreciation at 60%.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold specified by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue could not be pressed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to exemption for transport allowance as per Section 10(14) and Rule 2BB of the Income Tax Rules. However, postal allowance was not covered by the prescribed rules for exemption.

The Tribunal held that the income derived from leasing IT park space along with services should be treated as business income. The contemporaneous nature of agreements, the object of the assessee firm, and the nature of the premises supported this classification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance by relying on the Delhi High Court judgment in Bharti Hexacom Ltd., which covered the issue in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance by relying on the Delhi High Court judgment in Bharti Hexacom Ltd., which covered the issue in favour of the assessee.

The tribunal noted that the appeal could not be entertained due to the unrectified defects. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that investments, whether yielding dividend income or not, must be considered for disallowance under Section 14A and Rule 8D, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Maxopp Investment Ltd. The assessee's contention to exclude non-income yielding investments was rejected.

The Tribunal accepted the submission of the Departmental Representative. Since the tax effect was less than ₹20,00,000/-, the appeal of the Revenue could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's books of accounts and stock register were accepted by the AO without defects, and the purchases from walk-in customers were miniscule, the disallowance was not warranted. The Tribunal noted that obtaining full details from walk-in customers selling small quantities might not always be feasible.

The Tribunal held that the evidence used against the assessee, such as investigation reports and third-party statements, should have been presented to the assessee for rebuttal, adhering to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter requires fresh consideration.