ITAT Chennai Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in rejecting the Section 10A claim solely because it was not in the original return. The Assessing Officer should consider the alternate claim as if it were made with the original return, provided other conditions are met.

The Tribunal found the appeals to be not maintainable due to the non-rectification of defects and the absence of proper representation. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that toll collection rights qualify as an intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, entitling the assessee to claim depreciation. The decision followed a Special Bench ruling on similar BOT projects.

The tribunal held that depreciation is allowable as an application of income for charitable trusts under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. It also held that excess expenditure from earlier years can be adjusted against subsequent year's income and treated as application of income.

The tribunal held that depreciation is allowable as an application of income for charitable trusts under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. It also held that excess expenditure from earlier years can be adjusted against subsequent year's income and treated as application of income.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified based on tangible material. It allowed deduction for non-rural bad debts written off under Section 36(1)(vii) based on Supreme Court judgments. Some issues were confirmed based on previous Tribunal orders, while others were remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could claim exemption under Section 54 even if the new property was not purchased exclusively in her name, citing various High Court decisions. However, the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to adopt the guideline value for short-term capital gains due to the assessee not opting for a reference to the Valuation Officer.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessees regarding the quantification of disallowance. It found that the AO had not properly examined the transactions and the onus was on the assessee to provide supporting material, which the AO failed to adequately review.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in rejecting the Section 10A claim solely because it was not in the original return. The Assessing Officer should consider the alternate claim as if it were made with the original return, provided other conditions are met.

The Tribunal found the appeals to be not maintainable due to the non-rectification of defects and the absence of proper representation. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessees regarding the quantification of disallowance. It found that the AO had not properly examined the transactions and the onus was on the assessee to provide supporting material, which the AO failed to adequately review.

The Tribunal held that while some disallowance might be warranted due to the nature of vouchers, the entire amount was excessive. It directed the disallowance to be restricted to Rs. 50,000/-, similar to a previous assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified based on tangible material. It allowed deduction for non-rural bad debts written off under Section 36(1)(vii) based on Supreme Court judgments. Some issues were confirmed based on previous Tribunal orders, while others were remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The tribunal held that depreciation is allowable as an application of income for charitable trusts under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. It also held that excess expenditure from earlier years can be adjusted against subsequent year's income and treated as application of income.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified based on tangible material. It allowed deduction for non-rural bad debts written off under Section 36(1)(vii) based on Supreme Court judgments. Some issues were confirmed based on previous Tribunal orders, while others were remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified based on tangible material. It allowed deduction for non-rural bad debts written off under Section 36(1)(vii) based on Supreme Court judgments. Some issues were confirmed based on previous Tribunal orders, while others were remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. This was based on High Court precedents.

The Tribunal acknowledged that while the Income Tax Act doesn't explicitly allow carry forward of excess application of income, the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court have ruled in favor of the assessee on this point. However, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the availability of excess application of income in earlier years.

The Tribunal observed that the Revenue failed to rectify the notified defects. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal, relying on jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court decisions, acknowledged the principle of allowing set off of excess application of income. However, it remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the availability of such excess application of income in earlier years.

The Tribunal acknowledged that while the Income Tax Act doesn't explicitly allow carry forward of excess application of income, the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court have ruled in favor of the assessee on this point. However, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the availability of excess application of income in earlier years.

The Tribunal, considering the concession from the Revenue and the assessee's written submissions, decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the apportionment of expenses done by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was unsustainable. Following a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal deleted the apportionment.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is paid before the due date for filing the income tax return, no disallowance can be made. This is in line with the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Jurisdictional High Court.

The Tribunal held that the apportionment of expenses by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was unsustainable. Following a co-ordinate bench decision, the appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening were vague and lacked a live link to any specific issue. The reopening was considered to be based on suspicion and fishing inquiries, making it unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in haste without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in haste without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in haste without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in haste without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in haste without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in haste without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in haste without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in haste without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in haste without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the silver jewellery belonging to his wife was plausible, as expecting evidence for gifts received at marriage is impractical. For the other additions, the Tribunal found that the funds from the father's business were available and used for investments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in haste without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the reasons for the low net profit were not properly examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs specified by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal could not proceed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the silver jewellery belonging to his wife was plausible, as expecting evidence for gifts received at marriage is impractical. For the other additions, the Tribunal found that the funds from the father's business were available and used for investments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54 of the Act, even if the new property was purchased or constructed before the sale of the old property. The cost of land is also includible in the cost of the new residential house.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after perusing the medical report, and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the credit in its books of account.

The Tribunal held that the matter needed re-examination by the Assessing Officer as the investigation report was not furnished to the assessee. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The issue was covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal and the Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a copy of the investigation report and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue. The Assessing Officer was instructed to furnish the investigation report and other relevant materials to the assessee and decide the matter afresh.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not claimed any commission expenditure and had withdrawn the deduction for donations, the AO's disallowance of commission was baseless. The Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, considering that the grounds of appeal were filed before the dismissal and in the interest of natural justice.