ITAT Chennai Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal held that the waiver of the loan, being a monetary receipt, does not fall under Section 28(iv) as it requires the benefit to be other than in the shape of money. The Supreme Court's decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. was relied upon.

The Tribunal held that the MTM loss on forward contracts should be allowed as a deduction, as the assessee reversed the loss in the subsequent year and followed the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Woodward Governor India Private Limited. The Tribunal also remitted the issue of comparable selection back to the TPO/AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to consider the judgment of the Special CBI Court. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after examining the CBI court's judgment.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal as a consequential order under Section 143(3) had been passed accepting the original returned income. The Revenue did not oppose this request.

The Tribunal held that the head office expenses had no nexus with the interest income earned in India and were related to the exempt Malaysian plantation business. Following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the head office expenses had no nexus with the interest income earned in India and were related to the exempt Malaysian plantation business. Following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the head office expenses had no nexus with the interest income earned in India and were related to the exempt Malaysian plantation business. Following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since the quantum additions were deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty had no basis. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the FTC should be allowed as the foreign tax was offered as perquisite and taxed in India. It also noted that the belated filing of Form 67 is a directory requirement and not a bar to claiming FTC.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to consider the reported business income as speculation loss, allowing it to be carried forward.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee disclosed the interest earned as income, it is also entitled to claim the interest expenditure as an expense. The lower authorities' orders were reversed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were non-speaking and lacked independent adjudication. Therefore, the orders were set aside and the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s dismissal to be without basis. Both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were non-speaking and lacked independent adjudication. Therefore, the orders were set aside and the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the VAT subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt and directed its deletion from income, following previous decisions. It also directed the deletion of the addition made on account of CSR expenditure, considering it revenue in nature for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal further held that the license fee paid for technical know-how was revenue in nature and allowed it as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s method of determining the cost of land was unacceptable. It directed the AO to adopt the stamp duty value of the Sub-Registrar's office as the actual purchase consideration per acre.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as the AO had passed an order giving effect to the CIT(A)'s directions, deleting the disallowances after verification. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the VAT subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt and directed its deletion from income, following previous decisions. It also directed the deletion of the addition made on account of CSR expenditure, considering it revenue in nature for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal further held that the license fee paid for technical know-how was revenue in nature and allowed it as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable for compulsory audit under Section 44AB as the salary and interest income from partnership firms did not constitute turnover. It also found that the assessee was not required to deduct TDS, thus Section 40(i)(a) was not applicable. Regarding the land investment, the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition after verifying the assessee's share of investment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to sub-contract charges, finding insufficient evidence for the AO's disallowance. However, it remanded the issue of Section 80-IA deduction for fresh examination by the AO.

For AY 2006-07, the tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 15 lakhs as unexplained cash credit, finding the assessee's explanation of drawings from an AOP insufficient. For AY 2008-09, the tribunal directed the deletion of additions towards jewellery, finding the assessee's explanation of drawings from an AOP as a known source sufficient.

The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was not erroneous at the time it was passed, and subsequent events or internal audit objections do not render it revisable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as the admission of associate members and their loan transactions are in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as the admission of associate members and their loan transactions are in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as the admission of associate members and their loan transactions are in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as the admission of associate members and their loan transactions are in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as the admission of associate members and their loan transactions are in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the 'charity amount' was an integral part of the purchase cost for the assessee, as it was compulsorily payable for the purchase of goods and VAT was paid on it. Therefore, it should be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the 'charity amount' was an integral part of the purchase cost for the assessee, as it was compulsorily payable for the purchase of goods and VAT was paid on it. Therefore, it should be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the 'charity amount' was an integral part of the purchase cost for the assessee, as it was compulsorily payable for the purchase of goods and VAT was paid on it. Therefore, it should be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity for hearing and decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity for hearing and decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that the transportation charges were in the nature of a subsidy to promote horse racing and were not liable for TDS deduction. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the transportation charges were in the nature of a subsidy to promote horse racing and were not liable for TDS deduction. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified.

The Tribunal found that interest-bearing funds had been diverted for non-business purposes, justifying the disallowance. However, considering the amalgam of funds, the Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the disallowance, assuming advances were first funded from surplus funds.

The Tribunal has corrected the name of the respondent from 'Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU-1, Chennai' to 'The Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, 7th floor, Wanaparthy Block, Chennai-600 034'.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (share capital, reserves, and surplus) exceeding its investments in instruments yielding exempt income, the disallowance of interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was not sustainable. The presumption is that investments are made out of interest-free funds.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's accounting method of netting off provisions was peculiar. It restored the matter to the AO to re-examine the claim based on the assessee's accounting methodology.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to sub-contract charges, finding insufficient evidence for the AO's disallowance. However, it remanded the issue of Section 80-IA deduction for fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the increase in share capital and share application money did not involve an inflow or outflow of money and thus Section 68 was not applicable. It also upheld the deletion of additions related to goodwill and depreciation, and unexplained cash payments, confirming the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB should be levied on income that can be directly linked to assets or documents found during the search. Voluntary admissions not linked to specific incriminating material found during the search may not fall under the definition of 'undisclosed income' for penalty purposes.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's case for air ticket expenses might fall under the exception in Rule 6DD(k) if payments were made to airlines on behalf of customers as an agent, which requires verification. For hotel expenses, if the assessee, as a forex dealer, paid cash for purchasing foreign currency used by customers, it could be covered under Rule 6DD(l), also requiring verification.

The Tribunal held that since the appeals were delayed and the defects were not rectified, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of the set-aside proceedings by changing the assessee's status. The Assessing Officer should have restricted the verification to the issue of deduction as directed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1) for disallowing the deduction under Section 80JJAA was incorrect as the issue was debatable and required verification. Such debatable issues cannot be adjusted at the prima facie stage of processing under Section 143(1).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and that the assessee's submissions and evidence were not considered, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not defective as it specified the relevant section and the amount of income subject to penalty. The penalty was upheld, but the rate was adjusted.

The Tribunal held that advances consolidated at the Head Office for management control, originating from village-level primary agricultural cooperative societies, should be considered rural branch advances. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction on these advances.

For AY 2006-07, the tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 15 lakhs as unexplained cash credit, finding the assessee's explanation of drawings from an AOP insufficient. For AY 2008-09, the tribunal directed the deletion of additions towards jewellery, finding the assessee's explanation of drawings from an AOP as a known source sufficient.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB should be levied only on income that can be directly linked to incriminating material found during the search, not on voluntary admissions alone. The revenue's appeal was partly allowed.