ITAT Chennai Judgments — January 2023

The Tribunal upheld the AO's computation of capital gains, stating that exchange falls under the definition of 'transfer' and capital gains should be calculated based on the full value of consideration as per Section 50C. The petition for additional grounds was rejected as it was fact-based and not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80IAB is only available if the gross total income includes profits and gains derived from the specific business activity, which was not the case here as the income was solely from 'other sources' (interest income). The disallowance under Section 14A was upheld but could not be added back while computing book profits.

The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80IAB is only available if the gross total income includes profits and gains derived from the specific business activity, which was not the case here as the income was solely from 'other sources' (interest income). The disallowance under Section 14A was upheld but could not be added back while computing book profits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not cooperative during assessment and the CIT(A) did not provide proper reasons for deleting the addition. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for further verification.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in invoking Section 240(b) as the capital gains were assessed in the hands of the HUF. Therefore, the tax paid by the assessee on this income should be refunded or adjusted against the HUF's liability.

The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is eligible for deduction on interest received from TAICO Bank, which is also a cooperative society, following a previous coordinate bench decision. The AO was directed to ascertain if TAICO Bank is registered as a cooperative society.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It confirmed the revision order passed by the PCIT but directed the AO to verify the declarations received by the assessee under Section 194C(6) regarding the non-deduction of TDS on the specified amount.

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, finding that the AO had not properly verified the issue of trade discount and its applicability to TDS provisions. The assessee's inconsistent stand on whether the discount was an incentive or trade discount further complicated the matter.