ITAT Chennai Judgments — January 2022

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, they are not applicable for AY 2019-20.

The Tribunal held that the validity of the assessment order under Section 153A was not an issue if no incriminating material was found during the search. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute disallowance considering only investments yielding exempt income and to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB cannot be levied as the unsecured loan was found to be genuine in earlier proceedings, and the income was offered in the regular return filed within the due date, not as a disclosure consequent to search.

The Tribunal held that mere disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A, even if invoking Rule 8D, does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) if primary facts were disclosed. The assessee had not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the validity of the assessment order under Section 153A was not an issue if no incriminating material was found during the search. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute disallowance considering only investments yielding exempt income and to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, finding that the CIT(A) had violated principles of natural justice by not providing a fresh opportunity of hearing after a change in incumbent. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not considered the evidence submitted by the assessee in the correct perspective. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal upheld the revision order passed under Section 263 of the Act, which had been previously confirmed by the Tribunal. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as no higher forum order modifying the previous decision was produced.

The Tribunal held that the validity of the assessment order under Section 153A was not an issue if no incriminating material was found during the search. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute disallowance considering only investments yielding exempt income and to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that the salary folder, being part of the assessee's day-to-day records, should be accepted as true salary payments unless proven otherwise. The AO did not make efforts to confirm payments from payees.

The Tribunal held that the DRP's directions regarding the inclusion of 'provision for bad debts' and the exclusion of companies with mergers/acquisitions were correct. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's grounds regarding unutilized floor space and foreign currency fluctuations. The Revenue's appeal regarding the exclusion of freight and telecommunication charges from 'total turnover' for Section 10A deduction was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the jurisdictional issue specifically raised by the assessee. Both parties agreed that the matter could be referred back to the CIT(A) for adjudication. The Tribunal, in view of the CIT(A)'s admission that the issue of assessment on a non-existent company was not adjudicated and the concession from both sides, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to his file. The CIT(A) is directed to first adjudicate the issue of jurisdiction, i.e., the assessment on a non-existent company, and thereafter, decide the merits of the case afresh. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the substantive issue of whether the assessment was indeed invalid due to being made in the name of a non-existent company, as this was to be decided by the CIT(A) on remand.

The Tribunal held that mere disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A, even if invoking Rule 8D, does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) if primary facts were disclosed. The assessee had not concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the validity of the assessment order under Section 153A was not an issue if no incriminating material was found during the search. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute disallowance considering only investments yielding exempt income and to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that reopening the assessment under Section 147 was bad in law due to a 'change of opinion' without fresh material. It also upheld the deletion of the Section 54F disallowance and the addition on hire charges.

The Tribunal held that the investment made on 28.01.1991 was out of own funds. Investments made on 02.05.1991 could be presumed to be out of cash accumulations to a certain extent. The balance investment sourced from borrowed funds would attract proportionate interest disallowance.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's intention to utilize the Direct Taxes ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020’ to settle pending disputes.

The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously remitted a similar issue for AY 2010-11, resulting in the exclusion of the said entity. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the TPO/AO for fresh examination of the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the delay in filing the appeal and decide the case on merits. The ground regarding reopening of assessment was dismissed, and the disallowance of depreciation on the let-out portion of the factory building was upheld.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of employee statements without supporting evidence, especially when no incriminating material was found during the search. The reliance on Section 69A was also deemed inappropriate without evidence of unexplained money or valuables.

The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the delay in filing the appeal and decide the case on merits. The ground regarding reopening of assessment was dismissed, and the disallowance of depreciation on the let-out portion of the factory building was upheld.

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) made an ad-hoc disallowance without specific reasons. While the assessee failed to produce evidence, a blanket 1/3rd disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable when TDS has been deducted, even if at a lower rate or under the wrong provision, following the Calcutta High Court's decision. For foreign travel expenses, the disallowance was restricted due to lack of full justification by the assessee and ad-hoc nature of AO's disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on a change of opinion and not on any fresh tangible material. The information relied upon by the AO was already present in the original assessment records.

The Tribunal held that the validity of the assessment order under Section 153A was not an issue if no incriminating material was found during the search. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute disallowance considering only investments yielding exempt income and to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that the issues raised were debatable and covered by previous judgments in the assessee's own case and by various High Courts. Therefore, they were not rectifiable under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of employee statements without supporting evidence, especially when no incriminating material was found during the search. The reliance on Section 69A was also deemed inappropriate without evidence of unexplained money or valuables.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of employee statements without supporting evidence, especially when no incriminating material was found during the search. The reliance on Section 69A was also deemed inappropriate without evidence of unexplained money or valuables.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of employee statements without supporting evidence, especially when no incriminating material was found during the search. The reliance on Section 69A was also deemed inappropriate without evidence of unexplained money or valuables.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of employee statements without supporting evidence, especially when no incriminating material was found during the search. The reliance on Section 69A was also deemed inappropriate without evidence of unexplained money or valuables.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of employee statements without supporting evidence, especially when no incriminating material was found during the search. The reliance on Section 69A was also deemed inappropriate without evidence of unexplained money or valuables.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was done beyond 4 years and the reasons for reopening were already known to the Assessing Officer during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment was quashed on the ground of invalid reopening.

The Tribunal held that the DRP's directions regarding the inclusion of 'provision for bad debts' and the exclusion of companies with mergers/acquisitions were correct. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's grounds regarding unutilized floor space and foreign currency fluctuations. The Revenue's appeal regarding the exclusion of freight and telecommunication charges from 'total turnover' for Section 10A deduction was dismissed.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any prejudice arises from the scheme's settlement.

The Tribunal held that refurbishment charges are for repairs and not fees for technical services, thus not attracting TDS provisions. The Tribunal also confirmed the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA on interest income, following its own earlier order.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any prejudice arises from the scheme's settlement.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any prejudice arises from the scheme's settlement.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, citing principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any prejudice arises from the scheme's settlement.

The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any prejudice arises from the settlement.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.