ITAT Chennai Judgments — November 2020

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the issues of mutuality, tied-up grants, and the nature of participation fees. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the issues of mutuality, tied-up grants, and the nature of participation fees. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the Goetze (India) Ltd. decision pertains to the Assessing Authority's powers and does not restrict appellate authorities from entertaining such claims. The assessee cannot be burdened with taxes if otherwise eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the issues of mutuality, tied-up grants, and the nature of participation fees. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal, following its previous decisions, held that a CT Scanner, being a life-saving medical instrument, is entitled to a higher rate of depreciation at 40%. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow depreciation at 40%.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the issues of mutuality, tied-up grants, and the nature of participation fees. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the Goetze (India) Ltd. decision pertains to the Assessing Authority's powers and does not restrict appellate authorities from entertaining such claims. The assessee cannot be burdened with taxes if otherwise eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly examined the facts and circumstances related to FTS and Royalty. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the co-operative society was established for its members, not its staff, thus interest income from staff is not eligible for Section 80P. However, the issue of expenditure incurred to earn interest income was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The tribunal acknowledged the letter filed by the assessee's counsel. The specific decision on the merits of the appeals is not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The tribunal scaled down the addition for business income and allowed the claim for agricultural income, considering the evidence presented and the findings of the CIT(A).

The tribunal acknowledged the letter filed by the assessee's counsel. The specific decision on the appeals is not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal held that the co-operative society was established for its members, not its staff, thus interest income from staff is not eligible for Section 80P. However, the issue of expenditure incurred to earn interest income was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The tribunal scaled down the addition for business income and allowed the claim for agricultural income, considering the evidence presented and the findings of the CIT(A).

The tribunal acknowledged the letter filed by the assessee's counsel. The specific decision on the appeals is not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The tribunal acknowledged the letter filed by the assessee's counsel. The specific decision on the merits of the appeals is not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not conduct a proper inquiry and wrongly concluded the transaction as bogus. The Commercial Tax Officer confirmed the existence of the supplier, and the AO should have issued a summon under Section 131.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54F as she shared the sale consideration with her son for the construction of a new house, considering her age and circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the profits and gains of the Jammu unit were not correctly determined without allocating partner remuneration, as the partners' time and attention were crucial for both units. The AO's proportional allocation of partner remuneration based on sales was deemed a rational method.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made an addition without considering the withdrawals and deposits and without examining the assessee's sworn statement. The addition was made without proper reasons and justification.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for training was genuine and related to the business, aiming to improve management skills and implement new techniques. The fall in turnover or pending license renewal are not relevant factors to deny such business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the profits and gains of the Jammu unit were not correctly determined without allocating partner remuneration, as the partners' time and attention were crucial for both units. The AO's proportional allocation of partner remuneration based on sales was deemed a rational method.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present all details.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present all details.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present all details.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present all details.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present all details.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted an adequate opportunity of being heard by the PCIT. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the PCIT.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. It also ruled that additions for Section 14A disallowance cannot be made to the book profit computed under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation of inadvertent omission due to book adjustment and a High Court order was bonafide. Since there was no deliberate attempt to conceal income and the final outcome was a loss, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit, the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was liable to be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, following the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal held that a return filed in response to a notice under section 148, even if late, is valid for claiming deduction under section 80P. It further held that interest earned by a credit cooperative society from parking funds in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P as it forms part of its business activity.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of receiving income through banking channels and including it in returns appeared prima facie correct. However, since these documents were not produced before the lower authorities, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income admitted by the assessee. The issue of TDS credit was remitted to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's interest-free funds exceeded its investments in instruments generating exempt income, it should be presumed that such investments were made out of interest-free funds. Therefore, no disallowance of interest expenses was warranted.

The Tribunal held that if payments to non-residents are not in the nature of royalty or fees for technical services and the non-residents have no permanent establishment or business connection in India, then such payments are not taxable in India. Consequently, TDS is not required, and disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) is not justified.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the AO for fresh examination, as previous decisions on similar matters had been remitted. The other issues were dependent on the determination of the 'qualifying company' status.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and followed the jurisdictional High Court's precedent. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for claiming deduction under Section 32AC as the new assets were acquired and installed within the specified period, and the 'put to use' requirement is not mandatory for this section. The additions made by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) for disallowing this deduction were deemed erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for claiming deduction under Section 32AC as the new assets were acquired and installed within the specified period, and the 'put to use' requirement is not mandatory for this section. The additions made by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) for disallowing this deduction were deemed erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for claiming deduction under Section 32AC as the new assets were acquired and installed within the specified period, and the 'put to use' requirement is not mandatory for this section. The additions made by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) for disallowing this deduction were deemed erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not uploading the audit report on time due to technical difficulties. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for claiming deduction under Section 32AC as the new assets were acquired and installed within the specified period, and the 'put to use' requirement is not mandatory for this section. The additions made by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) for disallowing this deduction were deemed erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for claiming deduction under Section 32AC as the new assets were acquired and installed within the specified period, and the 'put to use' requirement is not mandatory for this section. The additions made by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) for disallowing this deduction were deemed erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for claiming deduction under Section 32AC as the new assets were acquired and installed within the specified period, and the 'put to use' requirement is not mandatory for this section. The additions made by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) for disallowing this deduction were deemed erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts from Harvester Machine operations cannot be considered net income as expenses like diesel, oil, and repairs are unavoidable. The assessee's declared net income after deducting expenditures is to be taxed.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) on the next hearing date.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving a proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and natural justice, the order was set aside.