ITAT Chennai Judgments — December 2018

KARUNA ELECTRICALS,CHENNAI vs ACIT CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 2332/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2018AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not sustainable, following previous decisions of coordinate benches. The Tribunal noted that Section 200A is a machinery provision and not a charging provision, and that the fee could not be levied retrospectively without an enabling provision.

PUSHPA SOHANLALJI FOMRA,CHENNAI vs ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(3), CHENNAI

ITA 2133/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2018AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal followed its previous decision where it remitted a similar issue back to the AO. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with a copy of the VAO's statement and reconsider the agricultural income claim.

PUSHPA SOHANLALJI FOMRA,CHENNAI vs ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(3), CHENNAI

ITA 2134/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2018AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal followed its previous decision where it remitted a similar issue back to the AO. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with a copy of the VAO's statement and reconsider the agricultural income claim.

KARUNA ELECTRICALS,CHENNAI vs ACIT CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 2328/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not sustainable, following previous decisions of coordinate benches. The Tribunal noted that Section 200A is a machinery provision and not a charging provision, and that the fee could not be levied retrospectively without an enabling provision.

KARUNA ELECTRICALS,CHENNAI vs ACIT CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 2330/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2018AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not sustainable, following previous decisions of coordinate benches. The Tribunal noted that Section 200A is a machinery provision and not a charging provision, and that the fee could not be levied retrospectively without an enabling provision.

KARUNA ELECTRICALS,CHENNAI vs ACIT CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 2327/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not sustainable, following previous decisions of coordinate benches. The Tribunal noted that Section 200A is a machinery provision and not a charging provision, and that the fee could not be levied retrospectively without an enabling provision.

KARUNA ELECTRICALS,CHENNAI vs ACIT CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 2331/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2018AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not sustainable, following previous decisions of coordinate benches. The Tribunal noted that Section 200A is a machinery provision and not a charging provision, and that the fee could not be levied retrospectively without an enabling provision.

KARUNA ELECTRICALS,CHENNAI vs ACIT CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 2329/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2018AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not sustainable, following previous decisions of coordinate benches. The Tribunal noted that Section 200A is a machinery provision and not a charging provision, and that the fee could not be levied retrospectively without an enabling provision.

SINGIRI SRIKANTH PADMAPRIYA,CHENNAI vs DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 12(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2662/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2018AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the documents submitted by the assessee to prove the creditor's creditworthiness. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination and a speaking order.

PUSHPA SOHANLALJI FOMRA,CHENNAI vs ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(3), CHENNAI

ITA 2136/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2018AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal followed its previous decision where it remitted a similar issue back to the AO. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with a copy of the VAO's statement and reconsider the agricultural income claim.

EKAMBARESHWAR HOUISNG DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORTS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs ITO CORPORATE WARD 2(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2232/CHNY/2018[2002-03]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2018AY 2002-03Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) should not dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and should dispose of the appeal on merit. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remitted the matter back for re-examination.

KARUNA ELECTRICALS,CHENNAI vs ACIT CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 2333/CHNY/2018[2016-17]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2018AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not sustainable, following previous decisions of coordinate benches. The Tribunal noted that Section 200A is a machinery provision and not a charging provision, and that the fee could not be levied retrospectively without an enabling provision.

ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE vs SRI VIGNESHWARA FOUNDRY, COIMBATORE

ITA 60/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2018AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below a specified limit should be withdrawn or not pressed. Since the tax effect was below the limit, the appeal could not be sustained.

KS HOLDINGS PRIVATE LTD,CHENNAI vs ITO, CORPORATE WARD 4(3), CHENNAI

ITA 65/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed12 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed funds for business purposes should be allowed as a deduction, irrespective of whether income was earned from the investment. The disallowance by the lower authorities was not upheld.

SELVI WINES,MADURAI vs ITO WARD 4, VIRUDHUNAGAR

ITA 1041/CHNY/2018[1996-97]Status: Disposed11 Dec 2018AY 1996-97Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in-limini due to the delay in filing and the assessee's non-appearance. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was duly notified of the hearing date.

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI vs SUNDARAM AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 2093/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Dec 2018AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on both issues, following precedents from the Delhi High Court and a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal. The assessee's cross objections were dismissed as not pressed.

S.PRAVEEN KUMAR,CHENNAI vs ITO WARD 1 (TIRUVALLUR), KANCHEEPURAM

ITA 1905/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed11 Dec 2018AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that once the original reason for reopening the assessment was found to be invalid, the Assessing Officer could not make additions on unrelated issues. The reassessment order was set aside as it did not stand the test of law.

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI vs SUNDARAM AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 2094/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on both issues, following precedents from the Delhi High Court and a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal. The assessee's cross objections were dismissed as not pressed.

VALIPI REDDY RAJINI REDDY,CHENNAI vs ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE V(4), CHENNAI

ITA 1153/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed11 Dec 2018AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to the unrectified defects and the assessee's failure to represent their case.

LAXMI DEVI MAHESWARI,CHENNAI vs ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 9(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2178/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed7 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the revenue authorities, holding that the assessees failed to justify the genuineness of the transactions and did not effectively controvert the findings of the AO and CIT(A). The grounds regarding opportunity for cross-examination and furnishing of investigation reports were not raised before the lower authorities.

VINAY KUMAR MAHESWARI,CHENNAI vs ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 9(4), CHENNAI

ITA 2176/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed7 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the revenue authorities, holding that the assessees failed to justify the genuineness of the transactions and did not effectively controvert the findings of the AO and CIT(A). The grounds regarding opportunity for cross-examination and furnishing of investigation reports were not raised before the lower authorities.

SANJAY KHANNA,CHENNAI vs DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 6, CHENNAI

ITA 972/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed7 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the stamp valuation of the common pathway should not be included when determining the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) for the assessee's share of the property. The addition should be based only on the stamp valuation of the assessee's actual share of the land.

DAMODARAN & SONS,CHENNAI vs ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 9(5), CHENNAI

ITA 2179/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed7 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the revenue authorities, holding that the assessees failed to justify the genuineness of the transactions and did not effectively controvert the findings of the AO and CIT(A). The grounds regarding opportunity for cross-examination and furnishing of investigation reports were not raised before the lower authorities.

GAYATHRI DEVI,CHENNAI vs ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 9(3), CHENNAI

ITA 2175/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed7 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the revenue authorities, holding that the assessees failed to justify the genuineness of the transactions and did not effectively controvert the findings of the AO and CIT(A). The grounds regarding opportunity for cross-examination and furnishing of investigation reports were not raised before the lower authorities.

VIJAY KUMAR MAHESWARI,CHENNAI vs ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 9(4), CHENNAI

ITA 2177/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed7 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the revenue authorities, holding that the assessees failed to justify the genuineness of the transactions and did not effectively controvert the findings of the AO and CIT(A). The grounds regarding opportunity for cross-examination and furnishing of investigation reports were not raised before the lower authorities.

PANKAJ AGARWAL & SONS (HUF),CHENNAI vs ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(3), CHENNAI

ITA 1413/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the revenue authorities regarding the denial of exemption under Section 10(38) as the assessees could not justify the genuineness of the transactions. However, certain computation issues were remitted back to the AO.

R.K.AGARWAL & SONS (HUF),CHENNAI vs ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(5), CHENNAI

ITA 1417/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the revenue authorities regarding the denial of exemption under Section 10(38) as the assessees could not justify the genuineness of the transactions. However, certain computation issues were remitted back to the AO.

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI vs MAILAM SUBRAMANIYA SWAMY EDUCATIONAL TRUST, VILLUPURAM

ITA 2088/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2018AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search and seizure operations. Following the Delhi High Court's view, which was prima facie approved by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

ITA 2579/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2018AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances, relying on High Court decisions that allowed payments to retired partners on account of overriding title. The Tribunal found that the reopening of assessment for AY 2010-11 was also justified.

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

ITA 2578/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2018AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances, relying on High Court decisions that allowed payments to retired partners on account of overriding title. The Tribunal found that the reopening of assessment for AY 2010-11 was also justified.

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI vs MAILAM SUBRAMANIYA SWAMY EDUCATIONAL TRUST, VILLUPURAM

ITA 2086/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2018AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search and seizure operations. Following the Delhi High Court's view, which was prima facie approved by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI vs MAILAM SUBRAMANIYA SWAMY EDUCATIONAL TRUST, VILLUPURAM

ITA 2087/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2018AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search and seizure operations. Following the Delhi High Court's view, which was prima facie approved by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI vs MAILAM SUBRAMANIYA SWAMY EDUCATIONAL TRUST, VILLUPURAM

ITA 2085/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2018AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search and seizure operations. Following the Delhi High Court's view, which was prima facie approved by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

SAMPATTI AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(3), CHENNAI

ITA 1418/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the revenue authorities regarding the denial of exemption under Section 10(38) as the assessees could not justify the genuineness of the transactions. However, certain computation issues were remitted back to the AO.

MAMTA AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(3), CHENNAI

ITA 1414/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the revenue authorities regarding the denial of exemption under Section 10(38) as the assessees could not justify the genuineness of the transactions. However, certain computation issues were remitted back to the AO.

RAMKISHAN AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 10(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1416/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the revenue authorities regarding the denial of exemption under Section 10(38) as the assessees could not justify the genuineness of the transactions. However, certain computation issues were remitted back to the AO.

RAJNISH AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1419/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the revenue authorities regarding the denial of exemption under Section 10(38) as the assessees could not justify the genuineness of the transactions. However, certain computation issues were remitted back to the AO.

RAJNISH AGARWAL & SONS (HUF),CHENNAI vs ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(5), CHENNAI

ITA 1415/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the revenue authorities regarding the denial of exemption under Section 10(38) as the assessees could not justify the genuineness of the transactions. However, certain computation issues were remitted back to the AO.

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

ITA 2580/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances, relying on High Court decisions that allowed payments to retired partners on account of overriding title. The Tribunal found that the reopening of assessment for AY 2010-11 was also justified.

TRANSCOASTAL CARGO & SHIPPING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs JCIT TDS RANGE 3, CHENNAI

ITA 2980/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2018AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable causes for the delay in filing the TDS statements. Therefore, the penalty levied for the delay was directed to be deleted.

PANKAJ KUMAR AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1420/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2018AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the revenue authorities regarding the denial of exemption under Section 10(38) as the assessees could not justify the genuineness of the transactions. However, certain computation issues were remitted back to the AO.

S.RAJAGOPAL,COIMBATORE vs DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

ITA 2257/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed6 Dec 2018AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had correctly considered all material facts and granted the deduction under Section 54F. It was found that the Principal Commissioner erred in invoking Section 263 as no fault was found with the Assessing Officer's computation or adherence to the law.

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, MADURAI vs SRI KRISHNA NAGAI MALIGAI (P) LTD, MADURAI

ITA 1901/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Dec 2018AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in estimating the gross profit when no defects were found in the assessee's books of accounts or supporting records. The assessee's explanation for the reduced profit margin was considered reasonable.

ACIT, CHENNAI vs M/S. SUBHAVARSHA INFOTECH, CHENNAI

ITA 2805/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Dec 2018AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the advances received by the assessee firm from the related company constituted deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e), as the partners indirectly benefited. It also upheld the partial disallowance of interest expenditure on loans where partners had a net debit balance.

M/S FULLERTON INDIA CREDIT COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 (1), CHENNAI

ITA 1083/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed5 Dec 2018AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest income on NPAs should be recognized on actual receipt basis, not accrual basis, citing Supreme Court and High Court decisions. It also held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added to book profit computation under Section 115JB.

M/S FULLERTON INDIA CREDIT COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 (1), CHENNAI

ITA 1084/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed5 Dec 2018AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest income on NPAs should be recognized on actual receipt basis, not accrual basis, citing Supreme Court and High Court decisions. It also held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added to book profit computation under Section 115JB.

M/S FULLERTON INDIA CREDIT COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 (1), CHENNAI

ITA 1085/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Dec 2018AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest income on NPAs should be recognized on actual receipt basis, not accrual basis, citing Supreme Court and High Court decisions. It also held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added to book profit computation under Section 115JB.

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs FULLERTON INDIA CREDIT COMPANY LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 1473/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Dec 2018AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest income on NPAs should be recognized on actual receipt basis, not accrual basis, citing Supreme Court and High Court decisions. It also held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added to book profit computation under Section 115JB.

SUBHAVARSHA INFOTECH,CHENNAI vs DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2365/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Dec 2018AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the advances received by the assessee firm from the related company were indeed deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e), as the partners indirectly benefited. Regarding interest disallowance, the Tribunal upheld the relief granted by the CIT(A) for a portion, but sustained a part of the disallowance.

S.SRINIVASAN,CHENNAI vs ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 9, CHENNAI

ITA 2139/CHNY/2018[2005-06]Status: Disposed5 Dec 2018AY 2005-06Remanded

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was pending, the penalty appeal should also be adjudicated along with it. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication of both appeals.