Loading ITAT cases…
758 tribunal orders from the Chennai bench in 2020.
Showing 40 of 758 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is applicable to exempt income from partnership firms. However, it directed the deletion of interest disallowance as interest paid was less than interest earned. The disallowance of other expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss on an ECB loan for indigenous assets is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) in the absence of Section 43A applicability. It also held that appellate authorities can admit fresh claims if facts are on record, upholding the CIT(A)'s direction to verify the interest expense claim.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss on an ECB loan for indigenous assets is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) in the absence of Section 43A applicability. It also held that appellate authorities can admit fresh claims if facts are on record, upholding the CIT(A)'s direction to verify the interest expense claim.
The tribunal held that the AO cannot reject the valuation method chosen by the assessee if it is a prescribed method under Rule 11UA. The AO erred in switching from the DCF method to the NAV method.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not challenge the validity of additions at this stage if no specific ground was raised before the lower authorities. However, certain issues regarding cash credits and interest income required re-examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the 'Vivad se Vishwas' application was rejected.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the 'Vivad se Vishwas' application was rejected.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and followed a jurisdictional High Court decision in a similar case. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for default without adjudicating the issues on merits, unless specifically authorized by statute. The appellate authority is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that for a manufacturing business, commencement requires installation of plant and machinery. Since this was not done in the impugned year, the expenditure could not be allowed as revenue expenditure and had to be capitalized.
The Tribunal held that while expenditure can be allowed during a temporary business lull, the assessee must prove a nexus between the incurred expenses and the income earned. The assessee failed to establish this nexus for most expenses.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not fully supported her claims with documentary evidence before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO to allow the assessee an opportunity to present all evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not discussed the facts of the case and had merely confirmed the AO's order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that since the e-filing of audit reports was introduced for the first time and the assessee faced difficulties, a lenient view should be taken. The audit report was obtained within the due date and filed before the completion of assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was linked to a prior assessment year where the appeal was set aside for fresh consideration. Therefore, the present appeal was also set aside to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke revisional powers under Section 263 when the issue is already a subject matter of appeal before the appellate authority. The assessment order merges with the appellate order, and the PCIT lacks jurisdiction over such matters.
The Tribunal held that while some expenses like uniforms were for business purposes, others like family day functions and marriage gifts were not clearly established as solely for business. Therefore, a reasonable disallowance was made.
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not adequately examined crucial issues regarding the purpose of investment and the nexus between borrowings and investments. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to exemption under Section 54F as they purchased two residential properties at different locations on different dates, which contravenes the provisions of the Act. The reliance on the Madras High Court judgment in V.R. Karpagam was found to be misplaced due to different factual matrix.
The High Court held that the assessee's contribution to the extent of the land settled in his favour would be part of the cost of acquisition or improvement. The Tribunal was directed to compute this cost.
The Tribunal held that once the Assessing Officer treated the income as business income, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the entire building, including the ground floor.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to provide evidence for the source of funds for investments made in earlier years. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was upheld.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in confirming the quantum addition as the Assessing Officer had not disputed the confirmation letters and other details furnished by the assessee. Consequently, the quantum addition and the penalty were deleted.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was also informed that they could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arose from the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after finding sufficient cause. The assessee was permitted to file the application for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme on or before the due date.
The Tribunal held that the re-assessment was invalid as it was initiated beyond four years and based on a change of opinion, without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The AO had already examined the same information during the original assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in confirming the quantum addition as the Assessing Officer had not disputed the confirmation letters and other details furnished by the assessee. Consequently, the quantum addition and the penalty were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to provide evidence for the source of funds for investments made in earlier years. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The assessee was permitted to file the application for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme on or before the due date.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not properly served with a hearing notice by the CIT(A). Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of creating a provision for warranty, in compliance with AS-29 and based on sales and historical trends, was scientific and reasonable. Previous ITAT and High Court rulings supported this view.
The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arises from the scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A creates a deeming fiction, and a direct nexus between expenditure and exempt income is not necessary for disallowance. The AO had recorded satisfaction as required, and the CIT(A)'s modification of the disallowance was upheld.
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that Section 14A creates a deeming fiction, and a direct nexus between expenditure and exempt income is not necessary for disallowance. The AO had recorded satisfaction as required, and the CIT(A)'s modification of the disallowance was upheld.
The ITAT decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the case back for a fresh order. This was done to allow the assessee to present the required details.