ITAT Chennai Judgments — July 2021

The Tribunal held that the AO had valid reasons to reopen the assessment as the original assessment did not examine Section 14A. The Tribunal also directed the AO to re-compute the disallowance, considering specific case laws regarding interest-free funds and investments yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided sufficient opportunities to the Official Liquidator to represent the case. Therefore, the appellate order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have sought a remand report from the AO as the issue of application of income was not examined from that perspective. The Tribunal noted that loans lent for Qardan Hasana should be treated as application of income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow expenses based on revenue allocation, finding it a rational method. The assessee failed to provide a rational basis for the higher allocation claimed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance of expenses under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D needs reconsideration by the Assessing Officer, considering the assessee's claim of sufficient own funds and the AO's consideration of total investments. The issue of subsidy disallowance also requires fresh consideration by the AO due to unclear facts.

The Tribunal held that the services provided for bandwidth connectivity, which are automated and without human intervention, do not fall under 'fees for technical services' under Section 194J. Therefore, TDS deduction under Section 194C was appropriate.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2020. The assessee was allowed to approach the tribunal again if any injustice arose from the settlement.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to present their case with supporting documents.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover investments yielding exempt income for Section 14A disallowances. For commission disallowances, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following precedent that commission paid as per appointment terms and Companies Act is not disallowable under Section 36(1)(ii).

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme settlement had been initiated. The assessee was permitted to approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arose from the settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal after opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the scheme's settlement.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it upheld the PCIT's order, finding that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries regarding the profit on land sale and the claim for exemption under Section 54F, making the original assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations. They also decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(Exemptions).

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 3 was issued. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the settlement.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed/maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the disputes were settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the application under the scheme was rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' to settle their disputes. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if their applications under the scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the disputes were settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the application under the scheme was rejected.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the disputes were settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the application under the scheme was rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' to settle their disputes. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if their applications under the scheme were rejected.

The Tribunal held that if the original reasons for reopening the assessment fail, the AO cannot assess any other income that comes to his notice subsequently during reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that charitable trusts are entitled to claim depreciation on assets whose cost has been allowed as application of income. It also held that excess application of income can be carried forward and set off against future income.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine whether the investments made by the assessee yielded exempt income and to decide the issue afresh in light of the Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Private Limited.

The Tribunal noted that the NCLT had ordered the liquidation and dissolution of the corporate debtor. In light of this order, the Tribunal found the assessee's appeal to be infructuous.

The Tribunal held that registration under Section 12A/12AA of the Income Tax Act is a condition precedent for claiming exemption under Sections 11 and 12, including for corpus donations. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer ought to have provided the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the parties whose statements formed the basis of the addition. Failure to do so is a breach of natural justice.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to furnish complete details, granted one more opportunity to substantiate the claim before the AO to meet the ends of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for adjudication on merits, emphasizing the interest of justice.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed TDS details before the AO but submitted them before the CIT(A). Since the CIT(A) did not consider these details, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the plea regarding non-interest bearing funds was not made before lower authorities and remitted the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to the AO for fresh examination. The Tribunal also remitted the issue of written-back capital reserves to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the plea regarding non-interest bearing funds was not made before lower authorities and remitted the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to the AO for fresh examination. The Tribunal also remitted the issue of written-back capital reserves to the AO for re-examination.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Department had accepted it, issuing Form 3. The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals, and the Department had no objection.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was advised to approach the Tribunal if any injustice arose from the settlement.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Department had accepted it, issuing Form 3. The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals, and the Department had no objection.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Department had accepted it, issuing Form 3. The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals, and the Department had no objection.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal, acknowledging the settlement under the VSVS scheme. It granted liberty to the assessee to restore the appeal if the VSVS application is rejected.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in revising the assessment order. The revision was based on suspicion and incorrect working of sales figures without specific findings that the assessee's declared sales were untrue. The Tribunal restored the original assessment order.

The Tribunal held that there were no violations of Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. For assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, the exemption under Section 11 was allowed. For assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, exemption under Section 11 was allowed, but the issue of accumulation of income under Section 11(2) was to be considered after the outcome of the petition for condonation of delay.

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 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 held that there were no violations of Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. For assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, the exemption under Section 11 was allowed. For assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, exemption under Section 11 was allowed, but the issue of accumulation of income under Section 11(2) was to be considered after the outcome of the petition for condonation of delay.

The Tribunal held that there were no violations of Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. For assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, the exemption under Section 11 was allowed. For assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, exemption under Section 11 was allowed, but the issue of accumulation of income under Section 11(2) was to be considered after the outcome of the petition for condonation of delay.

The Tribunal held that there were no violations of Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. For assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, the exemption under Section 11 was allowed. For assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, exemption under Section 11 was allowed, but the issue of accumulation of income under Section 11(2) was to be considered after the outcome of the petition for condonation of delay.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view that the micro-financing activity was charitable and not hit by Section 2(15) was a possible view, supported by earlier ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the PCIT's revision order was not justified.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, noting the assessee's intention to settle under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to approach the Tribunal if any injustice arose 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 scheme's 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 scheme's 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 scheme's settlement.