ITAT Chennai Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2012-13, finding sufficient cause. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The appeals for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that STT cannot be allowed as a deduction under capital gains. Regarding PMS expenses, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to substantiate its claim and ascertain if PMS expenses were already accounted for.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for Section 80JJAA deduction and remitted it to the AO for adjudication. For Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the disallowance after excluding certain investments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2012-13, finding sufficient cause. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The appeals for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals concerning short-term capital gains, stating the issue was already decided and pending before the High Court, and could not be reopened under Section 154. For the partner remuneration issue, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh examination based on previous orders.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO, holding that the Assessing Officer must dispose of objections raised by the assessee by passing a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal held that the assessment was bad-in-law as the possession of documents by the AO was after the relevant period for Section 153C and the addition was not based on incriminating material. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the cash receipt was not disproven by the revenue and thus the addition was unsustainable.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which was passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to furnish supporting materials. The CIT(A) had confirmed the assessment order based on available records.

The Tribunal found no substance in the legal grounds regarding the jurisdiction of the AO, dismissing them. However, on merits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the AO to ascertain the nexus between borrowed funds and investments.

The tribunal noted that the facts regarding the transfer of assets and liabilities, including the bank interest and service tax, required verification. It was also noted that the CIT(A) had decided one appeal ex-parte.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had entered into a sale agreement, the source of the Rs. 20 Lacs paid as advance was not fully substantiated. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh opportunity to prove the source of the funds.

The tribunal held that the assessee's business was indeed set up during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the business expenditure claimed by the assessee was allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the transaction was a 'Pucca Sale' as stamp duty was paid on the market value and title was transferred. Therefore, the consideration was treated as unexplained investment.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that services were actually rendered by CIPL. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of the payment.

The tribunal held that the assessee's business was indeed set up during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the business expenditure claimed by the assessee was allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be allowed to claim the expenses incurred as she had engaged employees to assist her in her partner's activities and provided evidence of their engagement and payments. Similar expenses for another assessment year were also allowed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the AO did not strike off inapplicable portions. This non-application of mind renders the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a primary agricultural cooperative credit society, is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The distinction made by the Assessing Officer between different classes of members was found to be irrelevant, and the activities were considered to be within the scope of providing credit facilities to its members.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the Revenue's appeals, but dismissed them due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The assessee's appeal was also dismissed as the interest income was earned from a bank regulated by the RBI, thus not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal restored the matter concerning the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, directing the assessee to provide details. The issue of mismatch in Form 16A was also remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-consideration of figures.

The Tribunal found no error in the assessment order, noting that the Assessing Officer had verified the details and registers related to the cash deposits. Therefore, the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal found the ad-hoc disallowances to be without basis and directed the AO to restrict disallowances to 10% of cultivation charges and salaries/wages. The expenditure on feeding children was confirmed for AY 2005-06, and the disallowance for excess salary/wages in AY 2009-10 was also restricted to 10%.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals concerning short-term capital gains, stating the issue was already decided and pending before the High Court, and could not be reopened under Section 154. For the partner remuneration issue, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh examination based on previous orders.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals concerning short-term capital gains, stating the issue was already decided and pending before the High Court, and could not be reopened under Section 154. For the partner remuneration issue, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh examination based on previous orders.

The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessment years, additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was referred to by the AO, the impugned additions/disallowances were unsustainable. For AY 2006-07, agricultural income was directed to be treated as Rs. 7.25 Lacs, and a slot fee addition was deleted. For AY 2007-08, agricultural income was directed to be treated as Rs. 1.75 Lacs.

The Tribunal found that the assessee followed an exclusive method for accounting Service Tax. However, it also noted that Service Tax liability arises on a receipt basis, meaning the full amount may not have actually become payable. The disallowance was directed to be restricted to the extent the liability had genuinely arisen.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was set aside by the PCIT under section 263. Therefore, the penalty order could not be adjudicated. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for appropriate action.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal held that the assessment was bad-in-law as the possession of documents by the AO was after the relevant period for Section 153C and the additions were not based on incriminating material. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for cash receipt from jewellery sale was not disproven by the revenue and thus should be accepted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a mere change of opinion, as no new material was brought on record. Since the original assessment was completed after verification and the reopening was initiated after four years without fulfilling the conditions of Section 147, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) as the container terminal was a new infrastructural facility jointly developed and the revenue was split. For Section 14A disallowances, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute based on investments yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a primary agricultural cooperative credit society and its activities are confined to its members. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, it was found that the distinction between different classes of members is not relevant for claiming deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), and the society is entitled to the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by accepting fresh evidence without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, violating Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the contracts spanned over multiple years, leading to reconciliation differences. While the CIT(A) had restricted the addition to Rs. 3.06 Lacs, the Tribunal, after considering revised TDS figures for Zonal Office-XIV, directed an addition of Rs. 22,96,335/-.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of dividend income earned. It also upheld the deletion of addition under Section 2(22)(e), following coordinate bench decisions that the assessee was not a shareholder.

The Tribunal held that since the revision order under section 263 of the Act was previously quashed by the Tribunal, the subsequent assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 has no legal basis and is null and void.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a primary agricultural cooperative credit society, is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The distinction made by the Assessing Officer between different classes of members was found to be irrelevant, and the activities were considered to be within the scope of providing credit facilities to its members.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of recognizing interest spread income over the loan tenure was correct, aligning with accounting standards and the principle of real income. However, the deduction for education cess was disallowed due to a retrospective amendment clarifying that cess is a form of tax.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest received from TAICO Bank, which is also a cooperative society. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It then followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, which held that the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi).

The Tribunal noted that club membership and subscription fees for employees are generally considered business expenditure, while expenses for availing club services are not. The matter was remitted back to the AO to ascertain the exact nature of the expenses.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries regarding the cash deposits, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's action to set aside the assessment order and direct a fresh assessment was upheld.

The Tribunal allowed depreciation on computers, finding no concrete evidence to disallow it and noting the large number purchased. For the 80G deduction, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the donation was from firm funds and not claimed by the partner, allowing it if true.

The Tribunal found that both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders were non-speaking and did not discuss the issue on merits. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the AO for a fresh decision.

The tribunal noted that the facts regarding the transfer of assets and liabilities, including the bank interest and service tax, required verification. It was also noted that the CIT(A) had decided one appeal ex-parte.

The Tribunal allowed depreciation on computers, finding no concrete evidence to disallow it and noting the large number purchased. For the 80G deduction, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the donation was from firm funds and not claimed by the partner, allowing it if true.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a primary agricultural cooperative credit society, is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The distinction made by the Assessing Officer between different classes of members was found to be irrelevant, and the activities were considered to be within the scope of providing credit facilities to its members.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a primary agricultural cooperative credit society, is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The distinction made by the Assessing Officer between different classes of members was found to be irrelevant, and the activities were considered to be within the scope of providing credit facilities to its members.

The Tribunal found the ad-hoc disallowances to be without basis and directed the AO to restrict disallowances to 10% of cultivation charges and salaries/wages. The expenditure on feeding children was confirmed for AY 2005-06, and the disallowance for excess salary/wages in AY 2009-10 was also restricted to 10%.

The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessment years, additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was referred to by the AO, the impugned additions/disallowances were unsustainable. For AY 2006-07, agricultural income was directed to be treated as Rs. 7.25 Lacs, and a slot fee addition was deleted. For AY 2007-08, agricultural income was directed to be treated as Rs. 1.75 Lacs.

The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessment years, additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was referred to by the AO, the impugned additions/disallowances were unsustainable. For AY 2006-07, agricultural income was directed to be treated as Rs. 7.25 Lacs, and a slot fee addition was deleted. For AY 2007-08, agricultural income was directed to be treated as Rs. 1.75 Lacs.