ITAT Chennai Judgments — February 2022

The Tribunal noted the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment de novo. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent its case before the AO, and the AO was directed to provide sufficient opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment de novo after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the AO for early disposal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the difference between the net profit in the ITR and the tax audit report, especially since the tax auditor filed a revised report with the same figures. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were justified.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a partnership firm, was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) as the provision was applicable to companies or bodies established under a Central or State Act, not firms regulated by the Partnership Act. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's work was in the nature of a works contract, further disqualifying it.

The Tribunal held that the non-compete fee is business income under Section 28(iv) and that the royalty income should also be treated as business income, considering the assessee's involvement in real estate business. The Tribunal also found that the reopening of assessment beyond four years was barred by limitation.

The Tribunal allowed the listing fee expense as it was an unascertained liability that crystallized in the current year. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict depreciation on digital content to 25%, treating it as an intangible asset and not computer software.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its cross-objection as it was a duplication of issues raised in its appeal. The assessee's appeal was admitted after condoning a delay, and the Revenue's appeal focused on whether income from construction and sale of residential apartments should be treated as business income.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and the Designated Authority had issued the necessary form. Therefore, the appeal was to be dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its cross-objection as it was a duplication of issues raised in its appeal. The assessee's appeal was admitted after condoning a delay, and the Revenue's appeal focused on whether income from construction and sale of residential apartments should be treated as business income.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid the tax amount as per the scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal also clarified that the assessee could seek recall of the dismissal order if the grievance was not resolved under the scheme.

The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance except for Rs. 20,38,461/-, holding that most expenses were incurred for business purposes and allowable under Section 37. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a non-existent company is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation. Therefore, the assessment is bad in law and invalid, following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited.

The Tribunal held that the non-compete fee is business income under Section 28(iv) and that the royalty income should also be treated as business income, considering the assessee's involvement in real estate business. The Tribunal also found that the reopening of assessment beyond four years was barred by limitation.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 5.25 Lacs as income from other sources. The surplus in the maintenance account was considered income as the assessee was obligated to maintain common facilities and no evidence was provided to show the surplus was refundable.

The Tribunal allowed the listing fee expense as it was an unascertained liability that crystallized in the current year. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict depreciation on digital content to 25%, treating it as an intangible asset and not computer software.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which was accepted by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a partnership firm, was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) as the provision was applicable to companies or bodies established under a Central or State Act, not firms regulated by the Partnership Act. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's work was in the nature of a works contract, further disqualifying it.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a partnership firm, was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) as the provision was applicable to companies or bodies established under a Central or State Act, not firms regulated by the Partnership Act. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's work was in the nature of a works contract, further disqualifying it.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technical grounds of non-attendance without considering the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the subsequent grant of registration under Section 12AA operates retrospectively for the assessment year under consideration, AY 2009-10, due to the first proviso to Section 12A(2) and the principle that appellate proceedings are a continuation of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the benefits of registration for AY 2009-10.

The Tribunal held that belated remittance of employees' ESI/PF contributions, if deposited before the due date of filing the return, does not warrant disallowance. Royalty payments for the use of a brand name and management services were also confirmed as revenue expenditure. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal directed verification of own funds exceeding investments and confirmed that no disallowance is warranted if no exempt income is earned.

The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the interest disallowance to Rs. 92,628/- after verification. The Tribunal also set aside the order regarding capital loss on shares and restored it to the AO for re-adjudication. The revenue's appeal regarding trademark transfer was also set aside and restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment lacked any mention of new tangible material that was not available during the original assessment. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the interest claimed was not solely attributable to the property in question, as a substantial portion of the loan was used for business purposes or had been repaid. Regarding ALV, the Tribunal found that the rental agreement clearly stipulated a higher rent than what the assessee had declared.

The Tribunal held that a portion of the cash deposits, specifically Rs. 22,26,919/-, was explained by personal loans. The remaining unexplained professional receipts were taxed at 10%, and an addition of Rs. 2 Lacs related to a car loan was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, being a contractor for the municipality, were commercial and not charitable, thus disentitling it from exemption under Section 11. The denial of exemption and taxation of capital gains were upheld, with directions for re-computation of capital gains at correct rates.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had failed to decide the additional grounds raised by the assessee concerning the reworking of the guideline value. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, being a contractor for the municipality, were commercial and not charitable, thus disentitling it from exemption under Section 11. The denial of exemption and taxation of capital gains were upheld, with directions for re-computation of capital gains at correct rates.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on assets acquired for charitable purposes, even if the expenditure was treated as application of income. This is supported by High Court and Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. All relevant documents were available to the AO during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal is not maintainable as per the scheme of the Income Tax Act. The Act mandates that an appeal must first be preferred before the learned first appellate authority.

The Tribunal held that belated remittance of employees' ESI/PF contributions, if deposited before the due date of filing the return, does not warrant disallowance. Royalty payments for the use of a brand name and management services were also confirmed as revenue expenditure. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal directed verification of own funds exceeding investments and confirmed that no disallowance is warranted if no exempt income is earned.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's business had been set up during the year, as evidenced by the appointment of managerial personnel, creation of infrastructure, and incurring of expenses. Therefore, the claimed expenses and depreciation were allowable.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, agreeing with the lower authorities that the assessee failed to substantiate the cash payment of ₹16,34,700/-. The Tribunal found the denial of the recipient and the lack of adequate proof to be decisive.

The Tribunal held that the assessee made a valid claim for bad debts as per Section 36(1)(vii) and fulfilled the conditions of Section 36(2). The revaluation of intangible software is subject to estimation and technological changes, and the transaction was supported by documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the payment was for the right to use software under a non-exclusive license, not a transfer of copyright. Therefore, it did not constitute royalty and TDS was not required.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) due to the ex-parte order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's detailed submissions explaining the non-applicability of Article 23 were not considered by the CIT. Therefore, the impugned revisionary order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on assets acquired for charitable purposes, even if the expenditure was treated as application of income. This is supported by High Court and Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the interest disallowance to Rs. 92,628/- after verification. The Tribunal also set aside the order regarding capital loss on shares and restored it to the AO for re-adjudication. The revenue's appeal regarding trademark transfer was also set aside and restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction before invoking Section 14A and that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added back to book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal followed its own prior decisions in similar cases.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the assessee earned any exempt income. If exempt income was earned, the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to that amount. If no exempt income was earned, no disallowance could be made.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction before invoking Section 14A and that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added back to book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal followed its own prior decisions in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction before invoking Section 14A and that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added back to book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal followed its own prior decisions in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction before invoking Section 14A and that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added back to book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal followed its own prior decisions in similar cases.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. Subsequently, as the assessee opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was deemed withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹.15,00,000/- from Shri Godi Pitchai Reddy was not justified as the Assessing Officer accepted the creditworthiness to the extent of ₹.15,00,000/- and did not ask the creditor to prove their creditworthiness. Similarly, the addition of ₹.7,00,000/- from Shri Venkata Subba Rao was deleted as the Assessing Officer did not ask the creditor to prove their creditworthiness.