ITAT Chennai Judgments — August 2022

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 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 acknowledged that the assessee filed its return under the incorrect section, which led to the denial of exemption. However, considering principles of natural justice and a CBDT circular, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for examination of the exemption claim.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C(6) and Section 194C(7) are independent and cannot be read together for disallowance. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the rectification order was quashed.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of the disallowance. The assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, and specific loans were either for a particular project or were interest-free.

The Tribunal held that corpus donations, being capital receipts, are not subject to tax irrespective of the eligibility for exemption under Section 11. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on account of corpus donation was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not properly examined the details submitted by the assessee to ascertain if the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in the Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. case were met. The Tribunal found that the assessee's method of calculating warranty provisions needed further examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that taxing the same capital gains in two different assessment years amounts to double taxation. It also found that the Assessing Officer erred in adopting an incorrect guideline value for the property.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding a reasonable case for the assessee. The matter was restored to the jurisdictional TDS officer to examine the claim and adjudicate in accordance with law, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding a reasonable case for the assessee. The matter was restored to the jurisdictional TDS officer to examine the claim and adjudicate in accordance with law, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding a reasonable case for the assessee. The matter was restored to the jurisdictional TDS officer to examine the claim and adjudicate in accordance with law, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding a reasonable case for the assessee. The matter was restored to the jurisdictional TDS officer to examine the claim and adjudicate in accordance with law, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding a reasonable case for the assessee. The matter was restored to the jurisdictional TDS officer to examine the claim and adjudicate in accordance with law, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not properly examined the details submitted by the assessee to ascertain if the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in the Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. case were met. The Tribunal found that the assessee's method of calculating warranty provisions needed further examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that ATM machines are eligible for depreciation at 60%, following its own earlier decisions. However, the addition for cessation of liability under Section 41(1) was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals on technical grounds without providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing and without deciding the issue on merits. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the claim of wastage, whether accepted or disputed by the revenue, does not involve any payment or credit to the goldsmiths in a manner envisaged by Section 194C. Therefore, TDS deduction under Section 194C was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the claim of wastage, whether accepted or disputed by the revenue, does not involve any payment or credit to the goldsmiths in a manner envisaged by Section 194C. Therefore, TDS deduction under Section 194C was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 12A, inserted by the Finance Act, 2014, were not applicable to the assessment years in question as they came into effect after the relevant assessment periods and the trust's registration date. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the exemption.

The Tribunal held that employee contributions to PF and ESI, if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be not retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 12A, inserted by the Finance Act, 2014, were not applicable to the assessment years in question as they came into effect after the relevant assessment periods and the trust's registration date. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the exemption.

The Tribunal held that the assessee violated Section 40A(3) as the payees were not identifiable and the genuineness of the transactions was doubtful. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was found to be erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective because the Assessing Officer failed to strike off the inapplicable portion, i.e., whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the penalty proceedings were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion by the AO, as the original assessment order had already dealt with the issue of the builder's portion of land. Therefore, the reopening was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening were based on incorrect facts, lacking a rational connection to the material available. The AO's belief that income had escaped assessment was not supported by the actual transaction details.

The Tribunal found contradictory facts regarding the ownership and nature of the RMO quarters property. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for further verification and ascertainment of the property's nature and ownership.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had examined the share transactions, including purchase, sale, and the broker involved, and found them to be through a recognized stock exchange and authorized broker. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding a reasonable case for the assessee. The matter was restored to the jurisdictional TDS officer to examine the claim and adjudicate in accordance with law, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) to decide the application afresh after providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the revision orders passed by the PCIT were barred by limitation. The time limit for revision under section 263(2) should be reckoned from the date of the original assessment order, not the subsequent assessment order passed after search proceedings, if the revisionary issue was not part of the reassessment.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not properly examined the details submitted by the assessee to ascertain if the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in the Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. case were met. The Tribunal found that the assessee's method of calculating warranty provisions needed further examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals on technical grounds without providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing and without deciding the issue on merits. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals on technical grounds without providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing and without deciding the issue on merits. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on replacing spare parts for the compact spinning system was revenue in nature, as it did not bring a new asset into existence or provide enduring benefit. The Tribunal followed its own coordinate bench decision and a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the revision orders passed by the PCIT were barred by limitation. The time limit for revision under section 263(2) should be reckoned from the date of the original assessment order, not the subsequent assessment order passed after search proceedings, if the revisionary issue was not part of the reassessment.

The Tribunal held that corpus donations, being capital receipts, are not subject to tax irrespective of the eligibility for exemption under Section 11. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on account of corpus donation was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the service of notice under section 143(2) is mandatory and not a procedural requirement. Since there was no proof of service and section 292BB was not applicable for the assessment year 2007-08, the assessment order was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 12A, inserted by the Finance Act, 2014, were not applicable to the assessment years in question as they came into effect after the relevant assessment periods and the trust's registration date. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the exemption.

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 12A, inserted by the Finance Act, 2014, were not applicable to the assessment years in question as they came into effect after the relevant assessment periods and the trust's registration date. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the exemption.

The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be given in the assessment year for which the income is assessable, as per Rule 37BA(3)(i). Since the income was offered in AY 2009-10, the AO erred in adding it to AY 2010-11 and directed deletion of the addition after verification.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A/153C require incriminating material, which was absent in this case. For AY 2013-14, the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustained as the assessee earned no exempt income.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A/153C require incriminating material, which was absent in this case. For AY 2013-14, the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustained as the assessee earned no exempt income.

The Tribunal directed the AO to examine the claim for wage arrears in the revised return. It allowed the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) based on the rule of consistency with earlier years. The issue of depreciation on investments was remanded to the AO for re-examination. TDS credit was directed to be granted as per law.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application. It found that the assessee's primary activity was educational and that mere existence of incidental objects in the memorandum of association does not disqualify it from exemption. The Tribunal also found no evidence of capitation fees being collected.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were out of the assessee's business receipts, which had already been taxed. Therefore, no further addition was warranted. The addition made by the CIT(A) was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a High Court decision which held that advances in the nature of commercial transactions do not fall within the ambit of Section 2(22)(e). Furthermore, the deemed dividend had already been taxed in the hands of another shareholder, meaning it could not be taxed again.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a High Court decision which ruled that advances in the nature of commercial transactions, like inter-corporate loans, do not fall under Section 2(22)(e). Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the deemed dividend had already been taxed in the hands of another shareholder.

The Tribunal held that the payments made for cancellation of the joint development agreement and to the tenants were self-created encumbrances and diversion of sale proceeds, not deductible expenses for capital gains. The relied-upon precedents were found to be distinguishable.

The Tribunal directed the AO to examine the claim for wage arrears in the revised return. It allowed the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) based on the rule of consistency with earlier years. The issue of depreciation on investments was remanded to the AO for re-examination. TDS credit was directed to be granted as per law.

The Tribunal held that the purchase of software licenses is not royalty income and allowed the deduction, following a Supreme Court decision. Regarding the interest-free loan to the employee trust, the Tribunal found it to be for business purposes and allowed the deduction.