ITAT Chennai Judgments — August 2022

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the HUF were not maintainable as the CIT(A) had already allowed their appeals by deleting protective additions. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to treat the business income as belonging to the individual assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the HUF were not maintainable as the CIT(A) had already allowed their appeals by deleting protective additions. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to treat the business income as belonging to the individual assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the HUF were not maintainable as the CIT(A) had already allowed their appeals by deleting protective additions. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to treat the business income as belonging to the individual assessee.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on DG Set spare parts should be treated as revenue expenditure, as these parts are integral to the functioning of the DG sets and their replacement is akin to repairs and maintenance. The mere presence of a similar head in the depreciation schedule does not automatically make it capital expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report, as the accounts were audited within the prescribed time and the assessee believed the auditor had uploaded the report. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B is deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that reinsurance premium paid to non-resident reinsurers is not taxable in India, and therefore, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that there was no incriminating material linking the cash entry of INR 35,00,000/- to the appellant. The findings of the lower authorities were based on conjecture and surmises, and the addition made was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the partner was eligible for remuneration for the three months she was a working partner, and the amount claimed was in line with the partnership deed and Section 40(b) of the Act. Both the AO and CIT(A) erred in disallowing the claim.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that Section 43B of the Act allows deduction of GST in the year of payment. Since the amount was not paid and not claimed as expenditure, there should be no addition. The matter was set aside to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that reinsurance premiums paid to non-resident reinsurers are not taxable in India under the Act or DTAAs. Consequently, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not examine the factual matrix of the case and confirmed the assessment order without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the cash deposit. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that reinsurance premiums paid to non-resident reinsurers are not taxable in India under the Act or DTAAs. Consequently, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the tax audit report was due to the conversion of the business into a private limited company and the initial formalities required, which constituted a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that depreciation should be allowed even when profit is estimated, provided details are available. It also ruled that unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward and set off against current income, irrespective of the timing of earlier return filings.

The Tribunal followed coordinate bench decisions and held that payments for accessing copyrighted material, rather than for the use of copyright itself, do not constitute royalty. Therefore, the disallowance and levy of interest were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that reinsurance premiums paid to non-resident reinsurers are not taxable in India under the Act or DTAAs. Consequently, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that reinsurance premium paid to non-resident reinsurers is not taxable in India, and therefore, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that reinsurance premiums paid to non-resident reinsurers are not taxable in India under the Act or DTAAs. Consequently, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS under Section 195, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.

The Tribunal followed coordinate bench decisions and held that payments for accessing copyrighted material, rather than for the use of copyright itself, do not constitute royalty. Therefore, the disallowance and levy of interest were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that reinsurance premiums paid to non-resident reinsurers are not taxable in India under the Act or DTAAs. Consequently, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that reinsurance premium paid to non-resident reinsurers is not taxable in India, and therefore, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decision for the Assessment Year 2009-10, remanded most of the issues back to the Assessing Officer or CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The specific grounds related to payments to foreign agencies, distributor incentives, news service charges, and interest on loans were remitted for further verification.

The Tribunal held that reinsurance premium paid to non-resident reinsurers is not taxable in India, and therefore, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of reinsurance premiums ceded to non-resident reinsurers under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 was not justified. It also ruled that additions made to book profits under Section 115JB for reserve for unexpired risk, premium deficiency, IBNR, and IBNER were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that reinsurance premium paid to non-resident reinsurers is not taxable in India, and therefore, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee trust is working solely for a parent trust which has charitable objects and is enjoying 12A registration, the assessee's activities cannot be considered commercial. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) would not be applicable.

The Tribunal held that the additions were merely agreed estimates and not based on any evidence of actual receipt of rental income. Therefore, no case for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income could be made out.

The Tribunal held that the additions were merely agreed estimates and not based on any evidence of actual receipt of rental income. Therefore, no case for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income could be made out.

The Tribunal held that the additions were merely agreed estimates and not based on any evidence of actual receipt of rental income. Therefore, no case for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income could be made out.

The Tribunal noted that the additional grounds and evidence were not considered by the CIT(A). Since the documents were not produced before lower authorities, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its claim.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2019-20, citing the COVID-19 pandemic. For both assessment years, the Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI was not justified, following its own prior decisions and High Court rulings.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, citing the principle of natural justice. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case.

The Tribunal held that fees under Section 234E are levied while processing the original TDS quarterly statement under Section 200A, not in subsequent intimations under Section 154. Therefore, the appeal challenging the levy should have been against the Section 200A order, not the Section 154 intimation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that the assessee's reasons constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that fees under Section 234E are levied while processing the original TDS quarterly statement under Section 200A, not in subsequent intimations under Section 154. Therefore, the appeal challenging the levy should have been against the Section 200A order, not the Section 154 intimation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2019-20, citing the COVID-19 pandemic. For both assessment years, the Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI was not justified, following its own prior decisions and High Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that fees under Section 234E are levied while processing the original TDS quarterly statement under Section 200A, not in subsequent intimations under Section 154. Therefore, the appeal challenging the levy should have been against the Section 200A order, not the Section 154 intimation.

The Tribunal held that the word 'a residential house' in Section 54, prior to its amendment, included plural units. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to deduction for investment in all three properties.

The Tribunal directed the AO to revise the intimation under Section 143(1) to align with the scrutiny assessment order, allowing the Section 80JJAA deduction. The CIT(A)'s observation was considered misplaced.

The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, they are not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee is entitled to the deduction if the contribution was paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1).

The Tribunal held that fees under Section 234E are levied while processing the original TDS quarterly statement under Section 200A, not in subsequent intimations under Section 154. Therefore, the appeal challenging the levy should have been against the Section 200A order, not the Section 154 intimation.