ITAT Chennai Judgments — September 2022

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) can be deleted if the recipient has disclosed the income and paid taxes. For expenses claimed as 'Minister Expenses', a portion was confirmed as disallowed, while another portion was remanded for verification. Disallowances under Section 40A(3) were remanded for verification of individual payments.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) are not applicable to property received under a will or by way of inheritance. The transaction was considered a family settlement, not a transfer attracting tax liability.

The Tribunal held that salary earned for work performed in the UK is not taxable in India, even if paid by an Indian employer, and directed the AO to re-compute the income accordingly. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision and various judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that approval from the appropriate authority is mandatory to claim deduction under Section 10B. Since no supporting documents were provided, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the revenue's appeal against the deletion of penalty was dismissed by the Tribunal due to low tax effect, rendering the first appellate authority's order final. Therefore, the current appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee had not earned any exempt income. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the Section 80IC deduction, holding that prior year losses of the eligible unit could not be set off against other business income and then claimed as deduction.

The Tribunal held that TNMM with Berry Ratio was not the most appropriate method for benchmarking the assessee's international transactions. The issue of transfer pricing was set aside to the TPO for re-examination, directing the application of CUP or RPM. The disallowance of provision for warranty expenses was also set aside to the AO for further examination.

The Tribunal held that TNMM with Berry Ratio was not the most appropriate method for benchmarking the assessee's international transactions. The issue of transfer pricing was set aside to the TPO for re-examination, directing the application of CUP or RPM. The disallowance of provision for warranty expenses was also set aside to the AO for further examination.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) can be deleted if the recipient has disclosed the income and paid taxes. For expenses claimed as 'Minister Expenses', a portion was confirmed as disallowed, while another portion was remanded for verification. Disallowances under Section 40A(3) were remanded for verification of individual payments.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) can be deleted if the recipient has disclosed the income and paid taxes. For expenses claimed as 'Minister Expenses', a portion was confirmed as disallowed, while another portion was remanded for verification. Disallowances under Section 40A(3) were remanded for verification of individual payments.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) can be deleted if the recipient has disclosed the income and paid taxes. For expenses claimed as 'Minister Expenses', a portion was confirmed as disallowed, while another portion was remanded for verification. Disallowances under Section 40A(3) were remanded for verification of individual payments.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) can be deleted if the recipient has disclosed the income and paid taxes. For expenses claimed as 'Minister Expenses', a portion was confirmed as disallowed, while another portion was remanded for verification. Disallowances under Section 40A(3) were remanded for verification of individual payments.

For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were null and void as the reasons for reopening were never communicated to the assessee. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal found the additions to be based on suspicion and conjecture, directing the AO not to disallow the business loss.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on application software was revenue in nature, not capital, as it facilitated business operations without creating an enduring asset. It also directed the AO to verify and grant the claimed TDS credit.

The tribunal considered the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the withdrawal request. Based on this, the tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the sale suppression for a period not supported by direct material found during the survey was not sustainable. It also ruled that only net profit, not gross profit, should be taxed on unaccounted sales, and the interest disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B cannot be levied for a venial technical breach without any mala fide intention, especially when the tax audit report was made available to the AO before the completion of assessment proceedings. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision on similar facts.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds challenging reassessment proceedings. It upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee had no exempt income. The issue of foreign exchange loss was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner had accepted the assessee's claim of deduction as correct, and since there was no error or prejudice to the revenue in the original assessment order, the revision order was not sustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(2) was not applicable as the assessee did not make a payment to a specified person. For Section 14A, it was held that no disallowance is attracted if no exempt income is earned, otherwise, it should be estimated at 5% of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(2) was not applicable as the assessee did not make a payment to a specified person. For Section 14A, it was held that no disallowance is attracted if no exempt income is earned, otherwise, it should be estimated at 5% of exempt income.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of allocation of common expenditure was not adjudicated by the lower authorities in the second round of assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the grounds related to this issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the advertisement expenses and salary expenses as business expenditure. It directed the AO to allow municipal tax deduction and found the fund transfer between firms unsustainable. A partial disallowance was made for car expenses and festival expenses.

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(2) was not applicable as the assessee did not make a payment to a specified person. For Section 14A, it was held that no disallowance is attracted if no exempt income is earned, otherwise, it should be estimated at 5% of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(2) was not applicable as the assessee did not make a payment to a specified person. For Section 14A, it was held that no disallowance is attracted if no exempt income is earned, otherwise, it should be estimated at 5% of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(2) was not applicable as the assessee did not make a payment to a specified person. For Section 14A, it was held that no disallowance is attracted if no exempt income is earned, otherwise, it should be estimated at 5% of exempt income.