ITAT Chennai Judgments — October 2021

The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission and the pending issuance of Form No.5 under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT held that since the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, the guarantee commission was an ascertained liability for business purposes and thus an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1). The tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments affirming guarantee commission as revenue expenditure.

The ITAT held that since the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, the guarantee commission was an ascertained liability for business purposes and thus an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1). The tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments affirming guarantee commission as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission and the pending issuance of Form No.5 under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear and notices were unserved. However, to meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide a final opportunity to the assessee to furnish details. If the assessee fails to comply, the assessment will be sustained.

The Tribunal set aside the appellate order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication. This was to provide the assessee with a final opportunity to present its case and supporting documents, ensuring natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide complete details of the loan lenders, including PAN and income tax particulars. To ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration upon submission of complete details by the assessee.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's non-cooperation, granted one final opportunity for the assessee to furnish complete details to meet the ends of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that including the insurance claim as income and then deducting it from the capital expenditure would lead to double taxation. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification and allowing the deduction.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal quashed the revision order passed under Section 263. It held that the Assessing Officer's assessment at 6% was based on a prior ITAT decision in the assessee's own case and thus was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the addition of the unexplained cash deposits to the assessee's income. The assessee's failure to provide evidence or appear before the authorities led to this decision.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's submission of doing a milk business and the need for a fair opportunity, decided to give the assessee another chance to present their case before the AO. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the date of electronic filing of Form 10A should be considered as the date of application. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to registration from Assessment Year 2017-18 onwards.

The Tribunal held that a registered sale deed is irrebuttable evidence of payment of consideration as stated therein. Oral evidence or subsequent averments cannot contradict the contents of a registered document.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to set off the excess application of funds from the previous year against the current year's shortfall. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's rulings in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that software embedded in a computer system is eligible for 60% depreciation as it's part of the integrated computer system. It further held that payment for a copyrighted article (software) is not royalty, thus no TDS was required, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 50C, which allows adoption of the guideline value as on the date of agreement if consideration was paid through banking channels, should be applied retrospectively. Therefore, the sale consideration as per the agreement should be adopted.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, as the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the department issued Form 3, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Since the assessee had settled the dues under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO to present their case.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB is mandatory when undisclosed income is admitted during a search in a statement recorded under Section 132(4) and the manner of derivation is substantiated. The assessee's admission and subsequent declaration met these criteria.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had made cash deposits and failed to provide details to the AO. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case before the AO.

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 settlement.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) erred in imposing an artificial condition of document registration for granting Section 12AA registration. The genuineness of the objects and activities were not disputed.

The Tribunal held that the AO made an ad-hoc disallowance of 50% of the bad debts without proper examination. The issue of whether the assessee was in the money lending business and if the debts were lent in the ordinary course of business needed verification.

The Tribunal held that the supervisory fees paid by the assessee to its parent company were genuine business expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the supervisory fees paid by the assessee to its parent company were genuine business expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the supervisory fees paid by the assessee to its parent company were genuine business expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the supervisory fees paid by the assessee to its parent company were genuine business expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the AO made an ad-hoc disallowance of 50% of the bad debts without proper examination. The issue of whether the assessee was in the money lending business and if the debts were lent in the ordinary course of business needed verification.

The Tribunal's previous order is being corrected to reflect that the assessee has submitted necessary evidence. This evidence supports the claim that commission was paid to various group companies, as acknowledged by the Income Tax Settlement Commission.

The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to shipping companies and CFS agents were not mere reimbursements but first-hand payments on a principal-to-principal basis. Therefore, the assessee ought to have deducted TDS on these payments.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for withdrawal of appeals under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had no objection. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for withdrawal of appeals under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had no objection. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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 settlement.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and the Department had issued Form 3. The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal, which the Department had no objection to.

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

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order and did not properly adjudicate the issue based on the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that exchange rate losses, adjusted in the numerator (export turnover), should also be deducted from the denominator (total turnover) to maintain consistency and avoid an absurd calculation, following the Apex Court's decision in CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the R&D expenditure was revenue in nature and fully allowable, reversing the depreciation granted by the AO. It also held that the addition on account of directors' remuneration reimbursements was not sustainable as the expenditure was genuine and incurred by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee made payments for the car and interest on the loan was allowed, and an affidavit confirmed business use, the depreciation claim should be allowed despite the director's name on registration.

The Tribunal held that the custom duty paid and written off as irrecoverable advances should be allowed as a business loss. It also held that the stock valuation method followed by the assessee was acceptable and directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal found that the expenses might have been essential for the sale of land and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the assessee's submissions and documentary evidence.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence in attending proceedings but, in the interest of natural justice, restored the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to re-adjudicate the assessment after considering the fresh documents filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for default and must decide it on merits. The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence reconstructed by the assessee and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that a CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for default and is bound to decide it on merits, even if the assessee is absent. The dismissal for default by the CIT(A) was deemed bad in law.