ITAT Chennai Judgments — September 2021

The Tribunal held that to meet the ends of natural justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present their case. The appellate order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had recorded proper reasons indicating an escapement of income. However, the taxability of the amount received under the debt waiver scheme was directed to be re-examined.

The Tribunal held that to meet the ends of natural justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to furnish the required details. The appellate order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that additional evidence was filed and required examination. To ensure natural justice, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2020 for settlement of tax disputes.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the tribunal again if any injustice arises from the scheme.

The Tribunal found that a crucial document (page 2 of the paper book) containing details of receipts and payments was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the tribunal if any injustice arises from the scheme's settlement.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was engaged in finance business during the relevant year, the income earned should be treated as business income. Therefore, the entire expenditure incurred for earning such income should be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000/- for lack of evidence to be fair and reasonable. The remaining Rs. 18,00,000/- was allowed.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2020 for settlement of tax disputes.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present detailed submissions. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure was revenue in nature and incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business. The Assessing Officer cannot question the necessity or relevance of expenditure incurred by a businessman.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for facilitating business operations or enabling the business to be carried on more effectively in the ordinary course are revenue expenditure, even if related to capital account. The expenses did not result in the acquisition of any asset or provide an enduring benefit.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals, noting that the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme settlement was issued. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the settlement.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for the VSVS scheme and the department had issued Form 3. The assessee requested withdrawal of appeals, and the DR had no objection.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for the VSVS scheme and the department had issued Form 3. The assessee requested withdrawal of appeals, and the DR had no objection.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for the VSVS scheme and the department had issued Form 3. The assessee requested withdrawal of appeals, and the DR had no objection.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals, noting that the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme settlement was issued. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the settlement.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals, noting that the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme settlement was issued. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the settlement.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions without proper verification of the transactions and supporting evidence. The Tribunal decided to set aside the issues to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal again if any injustice occurred regarding the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.

The Tribunal held that prior period items, including provision for gratuity relating to earlier years, are accounted for below the line in the Profit & Loss account. Therefore, for Section 115JB computation, the book profit should be considered before such deductions, and the AO's adjustment was justified.

The Tribunal held that while an appeal can be dismissed for non-appearance, a reasonable opportunity of hearing must be provided. Since the assessee's claim of non-service of notices was uncontroverted, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and the Department had issued Form 3. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. The assessee's claims of isolation and unawareness were contradicted by his participation in earlier assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. The assessee's claims of isolation and unawareness were contradicted by his participation in earlier assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the sale agreement dated 08.04.2015 was not genuine as it lacked the assessee's signature and did not mention possession transfer. The registered sale deed clearly indicated full consideration and possession transfer on 04.07.2016.

The CIT(A) rightly directed the AO to verify the assessee's reconciliation and delete the addition if found correct. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim of being an indigent person due to a lack of supporting evidence and dismissed the appeal for non-rectification of defects.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Subsequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle the disputes.

The Tribunal held that a single transaction of buying and selling shares within seven months, even if recorded as investment, does not automatically constitute business activity. The Tribunal reversed the lower authorities' orders.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. The assessee's claims of isolation and unawareness were contradicted by his participation in earlier assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Subsequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle the disputes.

The Tribunal held that merely because a claim is not accepted by the Assessing Officer does not automatically warrant penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the single transaction of selling shares held for over 12 months, as reflected in the balance sheet as investment, should be treated as capital gains and not business income. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s directions regarding Section 14A disallowances and other expenditure deletions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. The assessee's claims of isolation and unawareness were contradicted by his participation in earlier assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Subsequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle the disputes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Subsequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle the disputes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. The assessee's claims of isolation and unawareness were contradicted by his participation in earlier assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was incorrect. It reasoned that at the time of payment, the law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, did not require TDS on services rendered outside India. Therefore, the assessee could not be faulted for not deducting TDS due to a subsequent retrospective amendment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. The assessee's claims of isolation and unawareness were contradicted by his participation in earlier assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arises from the scheme's settlement.

The Tribunal held that the distance of the land from the municipality was 6.7 km, as confirmed by an IT Inspector's report and Google Maps, rejecting the assessee's claim of 8.5 km based on a Tehsildar's certificate. The Tribunal found no evidence of agricultural activities and upheld the AO's decision to tax capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. The assessee's claims of isolation and unawareness were contradicted by his participation in earlier assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. The assessee's claims of isolation and unawareness were contradicted by his participation in earlier assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal in light of their opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the scheme's settlement.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's application and the issuance of Form 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the application before the Designated Authority is rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's application and the issuance of Form 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the application before the Designated Authority is rejected.