ITAT Chennai Judgments — April 2021

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, stating that it was in the interest of justice. The issues were remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination with the admitted evidence.

The assessee's request to withdraw the appeal was granted by the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof by not providing any direct evidence linking the assessee to the on-money payment. Mere reliance on a CBI charge sheet, especially when proceedings are pending, is insufficient to make an addition.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for adjudication. Subsequently, considering the assessee's intention to utilize the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme', the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the rate of depreciation is determined by the installation date, not the acquisition date. Since the windmills were installed before 31.03.2012, the higher depreciation rate of 80% is applicable.

The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to recompute capital gains adopting the DVO's valuation.

The Tribunal held that since the issue of deduction under Section 10B was restored to the AO, the consequential computation of book profit under Section 115JB also needs to be reconsidered by the AO.

The Tribunal held that while the AO can estimate income when books are rejected, there must be material to support the estimation rate. Since the AO provided no comparable cases or reasons for the 5% estimation, and the assessee agreed to 3%, the Tribunal directed estimation at 3%.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on limitation without adjudicating on merits. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned in the interest of justice to decide the issues on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing wrong advice from the previous counsel and the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) without a proper hearing. The appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not analyzed individual transactions. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination, requiring the assessee to furnish supporting material and comply with legal requirements.

The Tribunal held that the restriction of 8 years for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation was dispensed with by amendments to Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act. Applying the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issues back for fresh decision. The assessee was directed to furnish relevant material and comply with the requirements of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the issue needed further detailed inquiry and verification. Therefore, the appellate order was set aside, and the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to the trust's objects did not fundamentally change its core purpose, which remained focused on education and social welfare. Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A should not be added to book profit under Section 115JB. It also held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive if the underlying addition is deleted.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A should not be added to book profit under Section 115JB. It also held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive if the underlying addition is deleted.

The Tribunal held that the new undertaking was a separate and distinct industrial unit, not a reconstruction of the old business. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 80IC.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not properly examine the assessee's contentions regarding the capital gain and developmental costs. The disallowances under Section 40A(3) were to be deleted if the cash expenditure on each occasion did not exceed Rs. 20,000/-.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable when no exempt income is earned, and depreciation is allowable if plant and machinery are installed and ready for use, even if not fully utilized. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the issue back to the AO, awaiting the decision of the High Court on similar appeals for earlier assessment years. The AO is to apply the High Court's decision once it is rendered.

The Tribunal held that enhanced profits arising from disallowed expenses are eligible for deduction under Section 10B, remanding the issue to the CIT(A) for reconsideration. It also ruled that expenses excluded from export turnover must be excluded from total turnover for calculating Section 10B deduction, again remanding to the CIT(A).

The tribunal deleted the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and remanded the calculation of other expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) for re-computation, considering only investments yielding exempt income. However, it confirmed that the MCX membership fee is a capital expenditure eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii), not a revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal found that the impugned transactions were not properly explained before the AO and remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh examination. The assessee was directed to furnish relevant material and comply with the AO's requirements.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A should not be added to book profit under Section 115JB. It also held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive if the underlying addition is deleted.

The Tribunal held that the new undertaking was a separate and distinct industrial unit, not a reconstruction of the old business. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 80IC.

The Tribunal held that enhanced profits arising from disallowed expenses are eligible for deduction under Section 10B, remanding the issue to the CIT(A) for reconsideration. It also ruled that expenses excluded from export turnover must be excluded from total turnover for calculating Section 10B deduction, again remanding to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that enhanced profits arising from disallowed expenses are eligible for deduction under Section 10B, remanding the issue to the CIT(A) for reconsideration. It also ruled that expenses excluded from export turnover must be excluded from total turnover for calculating Section 10B deduction, again remanding to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision also stated that assessees could approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred regarding the scheme's settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they have opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the Assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The Assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision also stated that assessees could approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred regarding the scheme's settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision noted that assessees could approach the Tribunal if any injustice arose from the settlement.

The Tribunal recalled its previous order and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. This was done to allow the assessee to avail the benefits of the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'.

The Tribunal recalled its previous order and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. This was done to allow the assessee to avail the benefits of the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'.

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessees were informed that they could approach the Tribunal if any injustice arose from the scheme's settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. It was clarified that the assessees could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arose from the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) as the Assessing Officer did not provide reasons for deeming the assessee's disallowance unrealistic. For disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the AO was directed to consider only investments yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal recalled its previous order and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. This was done to allow the assessee to avail the benefits of the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal and cross-objection as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The parties were given liberty to approach the Tribunal if any injustice arose from the scheme's settlement.

The Tribunal recalled its previous order and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. This was done to allow the assessee to avail the benefits of the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'.

The Tribunal recalled its previous order and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. This was done to allow the assessee to avail the benefits of the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue was permitted to approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred due to the scheme.

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessees were informed that they could approach the Tribunal if any injustice arose from the scheme's settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessees were informed that they could approach the Tribunal if any injustice arose from the scheme's settlement.

The Tribunal recalled its previous order and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. This was done to allow the assessee to avail the benefits of the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'.

The Tribunal recalled its previous order and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. This was done to allow the assessee to avail the benefits of the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not invalid as the assessee did not object to its propriety. However, it deleted the penalty for interest provision, considering it a bonafide mistake. The penalty for export product development expenses was also deleted, as the nature of expenditure was debatable and there was no intention to evade tax.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred regarding the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.