ITAT Chennai overrules CPC denial of exemption u/s 11 for K M Educational Trust, referencing CBDT Circular on filing ITR belatedly within allowed time.
AO had raised queries on two issues i.e. (i) assessee claimed only 15% depreciation on the Higher Efficiency Boilers (being energy saving device), when it was eligible for depreciation allowance of 80% on the Written Down Value (WDV).
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69 towards unexplained investment merely based on loose sheets without any corroborative evidences is unsustainable in law. Also held that addition on the basis of mere assumption and presumption not sustainable.
ITAT Chennai held that payments are in the nature of selling commission to foreign agents who is not having permanent establishment or business connection in India is not taxable in India and accordingly, TDS u/s. 195 not deductible.
ITAT Chennai remands ₹36.5 lakh unexplained loans case for reconsideration after assessee fails to provide sufficient evidence of creditors’ financial capacity.
Assessee being a real estate developer, allotted 10060 equity shares as per the fair market value (FMV) computed in accordance with Sec.56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11U / 11UA.
ITAT Chennai held that only profit embedded to creditors written off and discount receipts is needed to be added since both i.e. creditors written off and discount receipts are inextricably linked with business of assessee. Hence, appeal partly allowed.
ITAT Chennai held that cash collected from customers for purchase of stamp papers were deposited in bank hence source of cash deposits duly explained. Thus, addition towards unexplained cash deposits u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act not justified.
ITAT Chennai held that estimation of 8% as income on the total receipt by AO is justifiable since assessee failed to substantiate its claim of earning 5% commission on total receipt. Accordingly, addition confirmed and appeal dismissed.
ITAT Chennai sets aside ex-parte CIT(A) order on ₹33 lakh cash deposit, citing natural justice and Section 250(6) violations. Case remanded for fresh adjudication.
