ITAT Chennai Judgments — December 2021

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the date of agreement should be considered for the purpose of calculating capital gains, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim long-term capital gains.

The Tribunal held that a loose sheet found in the possession of a third party, without any independent corroboration or direct link to the assessee, cannot be the sole basis for making additions. The presumption under Section 292C is not applicable in such cases.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to file an affidavit for delay condonation and to present its case before the CIT(A). The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to file an affidavit for delay condonation and to present its case before the CIT(A). The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and the matters were remitted back.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was bound to issue a show-cause notice before passing a rectification order under section 154. Since no notice was issued and the CIT(A) failed to consider this, the matter was remitted back.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making ad-hoc disallowances for rent and security deposits paid to related parties without establishing unreasonableness or providing comparable cases. Consequently, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal noted that the reassessment was initiated based on an alleged omission of land area, which was already considered and decided in a prior appeal. The Tribunal found no new material to justify reopening the assessment on this ground.

The Tribunal held that appellate authorities have the power to consider fresh claims even if not made before the Assessing Officer, provided the facts are on record. Following its own precedent, the Tribunal admitted the fresh claim for prior period expenses.

The Tribunal followed its own order for a previous assessment year and remitted the issue of Section 14A disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for recomputation. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that appellate authorities have the power to consider fresh claims even if not made before the Assessing Officer, provided the facts are on record. Following its own precedent, the Tribunal admitted the fresh claim for prior period expenses.

The Tribunal set aside the appeals to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. This was to verify the correct facts regarding the filing of Form No. 10, considering the contradictory claims of the assessee and the revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for interest on non-compete fees, export commission, and foreign exchange fluctuation loss. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s allowance of sales promotion expenses and disallowance under Section 14A for lack of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making ad-hoc disallowances for rent and security deposits paid to related parties without establishing unreasonableness or providing comparable cases. Consequently, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal held that a disallowance of 50% of the total expenses (Rs. 2,92,44,825/-) would be reasonable, allowing the remaining 50%. The addition of Rs. 2 crore was also partly addressed by the CIT(A) considering it as income offered by the assessee, avoiding double addition.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee neither appeared nor furnished details despite multiple opportunities, and notices were returned unserved. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute through the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, there was no reason to keep the appeal pending.

The Tribunal held that payments for the purchase of copyrighted articles (software) do not constitute royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and tax treaties. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such payments.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable if the asset was put to use in earlier years and the suspension of activity is temporary, considering the assessee as a going concern. For land development charges, the Tribunal found that since the expenditure was recorded in books and explained, it could not be taxed under Section 69.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made due inquiries regarding the discounts given to members and non-members. The discounts were considered a business decision to increase turnover and reduce profits, thus not disallowable under section 36 of the Act. Therefore, the PCIT's order setting aside the assessment was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Act is not applicable as there were no creditors involved and it was merely a revaluation of assets. The surplus from revaluation is a book entry and not taxable income.

The Tribunal held that appellate authorities have the power to consider fresh claims even if not made before the Assessing Officer, provided the facts are on record. Following its own precedent, the Tribunal admitted the fresh claim for prior period expenses.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for interest on non-compete fees, export commission, and foreign exchange fluctuation loss. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s allowance of sales promotion expenses and disallowance under Section 14A for lack of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that contributions received by the trust are taxable as income under Section 56(2)(vii), reversing the CIT(A)'s decision based on a High Court ruling. Regarding Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the extent of exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making ad-hoc disallowances for rent and security deposits paid to related parties without establishing unreasonableness or providing comparable cases. Consequently, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for interest on non-compete fees, export commission, and foreign exchange fluctuation loss. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s allowance of sales promotion expenses and disallowance under Section 14A for lack of exempt income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for interest on non-compete fees, export commission, and foreign exchange fluctuation loss. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s allowance of sales promotion expenses and disallowance under Section 14A for lack of exempt income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for interest on non-compete fees, export commission, and foreign exchange fluctuation loss. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s allowance of sales promotion expenses and disallowance under Section 14A for lack of exempt income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for interest on non-compete fees, export commission, and foreign exchange fluctuation loss. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s allowance of sales promotion expenses and disallowance under Section 14A for lack of exempt income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for interest on non-compete fees, export commission, and foreign exchange fluctuation loss. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s allowance of sales promotion expenses and disallowance under Section 14A for lack of exempt income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for interest on non-compete fees, export commission, and foreign exchange fluctuation loss. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s allowance of sales promotion expenses and disallowance under Section 14A for lack of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making ad-hoc disallowances for rent and security deposits paid to related parties without establishing unreasonableness or providing comparable cases. Consequently, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for interest on non-compete fees, export commission, and foreign exchange fluctuation loss. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s allowance of sales promotion expenses and disallowance under Section 14A for lack of exempt income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for interest on non-compete fees, export commission, and foreign exchange fluctuation loss. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s allowance of sales promotion expenses and disallowance under Section 14A for lack of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that payments for the purchase of copyrighted articles (software) do not constitute royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and tax treaties. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such payments.

The Tribunal held that the provision for losses was an estimation and not based on any scientific method or actual incurred loss. The reliance on Accounting Standard-7 and CBDT circular was found to be misplaced in this context.

The Tribunal followed its own order for a previous assessment year and remitted the issue of Section 14A disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for recomputation. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal set aside the appeals to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. This was to verify the correct facts regarding the filing of Form No. 10, considering the contradictory claims of the assessee and the revenue.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable if the asset was put to use in earlier years and the suspension of activity is temporary, considering the assessee as a going concern. For land development charges, the Tribunal found that since the expenditure was recorded in books and explained, it could not be taxed under Section 69.

The Tribunal found that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay constituted a reasonable cause. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable if the asset was put to use in earlier years and the suspension of activity is temporary, considering the assessee as a going concern. For land development charges, the Tribunal found that since the expenditure was recorded in books and explained, it could not be taxed under Section 69.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on machinery even if temporarily not used, provided it was ready for use and the assessee is a going concern. The Tribunal also held that land development charges recorded in books and explained as to source cannot be taxed under Section 69.

The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, citing the principle of natural justice. The assessee was directed to substantiate their stand.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Revenue did not raise any material objection against the withdrawal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was deemed not maintainable.

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, citing the principle of natural justice. The assessee was directed to substantiate their stand, failing which the AO could proceed with the assessment based on available material.

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.