ITAT Chennai Judgments — February 2022

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 condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the mistake of the authorized representative and the liberal approach adopted in such matters. The main appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication after considering the evidence, and the penalty appeal was also restored.

The ITAT noted that the order in ITA No.1707/Chny/2012 was not challenged by either party before the High Court and was already decided by the Tribunal. Therefore, this appeal was delinked and treated as disposed off.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the mistake of the authorized representative and the liberal approach adopted in such matters. The main appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication after considering the evidence, and the penalty appeal was also restored.

The Tribunal held that the AO should first examine the books of accounts for direct expenses relatable to dividend income. For computing the average value of investments under Rule 8D(iii), only investments yielding exempt income should be considered.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a positive gross total income after adjusting losses and capital gains. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80-IA could not be denied based on the cited High Court and Supreme Court decisions, which applied when gross total income was nil.

The Tribunal held that the retained amount was governed by Section 51 and should be deducted from the cost of acquisition of the asset, not taxed as income. The amendment to Section 56(2)(ix) was not applicable for the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 10A, following the Supreme Court ruling in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. For the second appeal, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing the CIT(A) to verify the commission paid to Yes Bank and the cost of share acquisition himself.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had submitted Form 15J for a significant portion of the payments, and for payments below Rs. 50,000, TDS was not required. Therefore, the disallowance was rightly restricted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on the Elite Compact System was revenue in nature as it improved product quality without increasing production capacity and was an attachment to existing machinery. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of disallowance for PF and ESI contributions made before the due date of filing the return of income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as an intermediary and incurred expenses on behalf of its clients, not in its own capacity. Therefore, the assessee was not responsible for TDS, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not attracted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 10A, following the Supreme Court ruling in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. For the second appeal, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing the CIT(A) to verify the commission paid to Yes Bank and the cost of share acquisition himself.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly. The original assessment had considered all the relevant documents submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the fair market value of the converted land needs to be ascertained considering various factors like sale instances and urbanization. The AO was directed to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for this purpose.

The Tribunal held that additions based on extrapolated income and 'dumb documents' without corroborative evidence are not sustainable. Presumptions under Section 132(4A) are rebuttable, and the revenue failed to establish the link between the seized documents and the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of development expenses at 40% by the CIT(A) was reasonable and dismissed appeals on this issue. For sales commission, the disallowance was restricted to 40%. For unaccounted sales, the Tribunal directed estimation of profit at 8% on the computed amount.

The Tribunal set aside the issue of Section 80IA deduction to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. Regarding PF/ESI contributions, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on the Madras High Court ruling.

The Tribunal agreed with both parties that the issue needed to be decided after the Settlement Commission's decision on the father's application. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of development expenses at 40% by the CIT(A) was reasonable and upheld it. For sales commission, the disallowance was restricted to 40%. For unaccounted sales, the Tribunal directed an estimation of profit at 8% on the computed unaccounted sales.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of development expenses at 40% by the CIT(A) was reasonable and dismissed appeals on this issue. For sales commission, the disallowance was restricted to 40%. For unaccounted sales, the Tribunal directed estimation of profit at 8% on the computed amount.

The Tribunal held that additions based on extrapolated income and 'dumb documents' without corroborative evidence are not sustainable. Presumptions under Section 132(4A) are rebuttable, and the revenue failed to establish the link between the seized documents and the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of development expenses at 40% by the CIT(A) was reasonable and dismissed appeals on this issue. For sales commission, the disallowance was restricted to 40%. For unaccounted sales, the Tribunal directed estimation of profit at 8% on the computed amount.

The Tribunal set aside the issue of Section 80IA deduction to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. Regarding PF/ESI contributions, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on the Madras High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 10CCB along with the revised return fulfilled the statutory requirement. The assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 80-IC, and the denial by lower authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of development expenses at 40% by the CIT(A) was reasonable and dismissed appeals on this issue. For sales commission, the disallowance was restricted to 40%. For unaccounted sales, the Tribunal directed estimation of profit at 8% on the computed amount.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of development expenses at 40% by the CIT(A) was reasonable and dismissed appeals on this issue. For sales commission, the disallowance was restricted to 40%. For unaccounted sales, the Tribunal directed estimation of profit at 8% on the computed amount.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of development expenses at 40% by the CIT(A) was reasonable and dismissed appeals on this issue. For sales commission, the disallowance was restricted to 40%. For unaccounted sales, the Tribunal directed estimation of profit at 8% on the computed amount.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of development expenses at 40% by the CIT(A) was reasonable and dismissed appeals on this issue. For sales commission, the disallowance was restricted to 40%. For unaccounted sales, the Tribunal directed estimation of profit at 8% on the computed amount.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of development expenses at 40% by the CIT(A) was reasonable and dismissed appeals on this issue. For sales commission, the disallowance was restricted to 40%. For unaccounted sales, the Tribunal directed estimation of profit at 8% on the computed amount.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of development expenses at 40% by the CIT(A) was reasonable and dismissed appeals on this issue. For sales commission, the disallowance was restricted to 40%. For unaccounted sales, the Tribunal directed estimation of profit at 8% on the computed amount.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of development expenses at 40% by the CIT(A) was reasonable and dismissed appeals on this issue. For sales commission, the disallowance was restricted to 40%. For unaccounted sales, the Tribunal directed estimation of profit at 8% on the computed amount.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of development expenses at 40% by the CIT(A) was reasonable and dismissed appeals on this issue. For sales commission, the disallowance was restricted to 40%. For unaccounted sales, the Tribunal directed estimation of profit at 8% on the computed amount.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of development expenses at 40% by the CIT(A) was reasonable and dismissed appeals on this issue. For sales commission, the disallowance was restricted to 40%. For unaccounted sales, the Tribunal directed estimation of profit at 8% on the computed amount.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of development expenses at 40% by the CIT(A) was reasonable and dismissed appeals on this issue. For sales commission, the disallowance was restricted to 40%. For unaccounted sales, the Tribunal directed estimation of profit at 8% on the computed amount.

The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt a profit rate of 2% net after depreciation on sales turnover, instead of the assessee's offered rate. The addition for suppressed sales was deleted, and the addition for unexplained investment was deleted due to lack of corroborative material.

The Tribunal held that the peak credit theory should be considered before treating entire cash deposits as unexplained. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to consider only the peak credit as unexplained.

The Tribunal held that the peak credit theory should be considered before treating entire cash deposits as unexplained. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to consider only the peak credit as unexplained.

The Tribunal held that the peak credit theory should be considered before treating entire cash deposits as unexplained. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to consider only the peak credit as unexplained.

The Tribunal held that the peak credit theory should be considered before treating entire cash deposits as unexplained. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to consider only the peak credit as unexplained.

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, they are not applicable for the assessment year 2019-20.

The tribunal dismissed the ground related to the disallowance of interest income earned by staff advance, following a previous decision. For other grounds concerning depreciation, repair and maintenance, and Section 40A(ia) disallowances, the tribunal sustained the disallowances due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the assessee company no longer existed. Therefore, any claim against the company was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the forex derivative transactions were entered into for hedging export receivables and were therefore in the nature of business loss, not speculative loss. The loss was ordinary revenue expenditure arising from the business.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the e-appeal. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was silent about exempt income earned by the assessee, which is a prerequisite for disallowance under Section 14A. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

The Tribunal found that while the AO made efforts to serve notices, the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal set aside the issue of disallowance of expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to prove that the payees had offered the payments in their income and paid taxes. The legal grounds challenging the reassessment were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that if there is a commercial expediency and business connection between the assessee and its subsidiaries, disallowing interest on borrowed funds used for such advances is incorrect. The Tribunal also noted that the loans were given out of interest-free funds raised through share capital.

The tribunal dismissed the ground related to the disallowance of interest income earned by staff advance, following a previous decision. For other grounds concerning depreciation, repair and maintenance, and Section 40A(ia) disallowances, the tribunal sustained the disallowances due to lack of evidence.