ITAT Chennai Judgments — December 2021

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, citing the principle of natural justice. The assessee was directed to substantiate their stand, failing which the AO could proceed with the assessment based on available material.

The Tribunal held that the sale of M/s. CL Educate Ltd. shares to the assessee's mother was a genuine transaction, and the short-term capital loss arising from it should be allowed to be set off against the long-term capital gains. The denial of exemption under Section 54F for the property purchase was also set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions solely on the basis of banking transactions. The AO had presented evidence suggesting the investor companies were paper entities and the transactions were part of an accommodation entry scheme, which the CIT(A) failed to adequately consider.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions solely on the basis of banking transactions. The AO had presented evidence suggesting the investor companies were paper entities and the transactions were part of an accommodation entry scheme, which the CIT(A) failed to adequately consider.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions solely on the basis of banking transactions. The AO had presented evidence suggesting the investor companies were paper entities and the transactions were part of an accommodation entry scheme, which the CIT(A) failed to adequately consider.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions solely on the basis of banking transactions. The AO had presented evidence suggesting the investor companies were paper entities and the transactions were part of an accommodation entry scheme, which the CIT(A) failed to adequately consider.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions solely on the basis of banking transactions. The AO had presented evidence suggesting the investor companies were paper entities and the transactions were part of an accommodation entry scheme, which the CIT(A) failed to adequately consider.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions solely on the basis of banking transactions. The AO had presented evidence suggesting the investor companies were paper entities and the transactions were part of an accommodation entry scheme, which the CIT(A) failed to adequately consider.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions solely on the basis of banking transactions. The AO had presented evidence suggesting the investor companies were paper entities and the transactions were part of an accommodation entry scheme, which the CIT(A) failed to adequately consider.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions solely on the basis of banking transactions. The AO had presented evidence suggesting the investor companies were paper entities and the transactions were part of an accommodation entry scheme, which the CIT(A) failed to adequately consider.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions solely on the basis of banking transactions. The AO had presented evidence suggesting the investor companies were paper entities and the transactions were part of an accommodation entry scheme, which the CIT(A) failed to adequately consider.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions solely on the basis of banking transactions. The AO had presented evidence suggesting the investor companies were paper entities and the transactions were part of an accommodation entry scheme, which the CIT(A) failed to adequately consider.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, which was below the CBDT's monetary limit. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and the Designated Authority had issued relevant forms for settlement. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue authorities were precluded from filing the appeals as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the additional income disclosed after the search was deemed concealment of income under Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) as amended. The disclosure was not considered voluntary as no explanation was provided during penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 which sets a monetary limit for appeals. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, which was below the CBDT's monetary limit. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, which was below the CBDT's monetary limit. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the tax effect in the appeals filed by the Revenue was less than the monetary limit of ₹.50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeals as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's frequent buying and selling of lands, evidenced by numerous transactions, indicated an intention to earn profit rather than hold for agricultural purposes. Simply showing lands as investments in the balance sheet was insufficient to negate the business activity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. It also set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the appeal on merits, as the previous ITAT order only confirmed the CIT's power to direct a fresh assessment. The CIT(A) was obligated to consider the appeal's merits.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea for a fresh hearing before the CIT(A). The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea for another opportunity and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case, failing which the CIT(A) could decide based on available material.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's frequent buying and selling of lands, evidenced by numerous transactions, indicated an intention to earn profit rather than hold for agricultural purposes. Simply showing lands as investments in the balance sheet was insufficient to negate the business activity.

The Tribunal found that there was no delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as per the provided dates. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record dissatisfaction with the assessee's working and did not establish a nexus between borrowed funds and investments. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's own funds exceeded its investments and that the disallowance offered by the assessee was in line with earlier Tribunal and High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer due to an inadvertent mistake in filling the form. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not considered the assessee's submissions regarding the nature of the subsidy and had relied solely on the initial admission. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Since the assessee opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, the appeal filed by the Revenue was 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 again if any prejudice arises from the settlement.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and a settlement form was issued. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the illness of the Managing Trustee constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B for the delay in filing returns. Since there was no intentional delay or loss of revenue, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that cash payments made for materials were justified under Rule 6DD exceptions, including emergency situations and non-availability of banking facilities. It also found that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of unsecured loans, which were later offered to tax under Section 41(1).

The Tribunal held that cash payments made for materials were covered under Rule 6DD exceptions or made due to emergency/peculiar business nature, thus not disallowable under Section 40A(3). It also held that the assessee discharged its onus for unsecured loans, and since the loans were later offered to tax under Section 41(1), no addition could be made for the impugned years.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the application under the scheme was rejected.

The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the application under the scheme was rejected.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to comply with the High Court's directions, including payment of costs, the appeal was not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to pass a speaking order on the assessee's objections to the reopening, violating principles of natural justice and Supreme Court guidelines. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed to be without jurisdiction and quashed.

The Tribunal held that cash payments made for materials were justified under Rule 6DD exceptions, including emergency situations and non-availability of banking facilities. It also found that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of unsecured loans, which were later offered to tax under Section 41(1).

The Tribunal held that cash payments made for materials were justified under Rule 6DD exceptions, including emergency situations and non-availability of banking facilities. It also found that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of unsecured loans, which were later offered to tax under Section 41(1).

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) by inserting Explanation 2 is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment years under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the illness of the Managing Trustee constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B for the delay in filing returns. Since there was no intentional delay or loss of revenue, the penalty was not leviable.