ITAT Chennai Judgments — January 2022

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The appeals and cross-objection were restored to the file of the CIT(A) to pass fresh orders after considering the NCLT orders.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The appeals and cross-objection were restored to the file of the CIT(A) to pass fresh orders after considering the NCLT's orders.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2004-05 were not valid and dismissed the Revenue's appeal for that year. For AY 2005-06 and 2006-07, certain issues were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee, following the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Tribunal found that the payments were likely made to residents and the tax auditor mistakenly reported them under the wrong column. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and a settlement form was issued. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the assessee failed to disclose all material facts. The claim for depreciation was also dismissed as the assessee was not the owner of the bridge and the BOT agreement was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2004-05 were not valid and dismissed the Revenue's appeal for that year. For AY 2005-06 and 2006-07, certain issues were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as the AO failed to examine all expenditures. However, it modified the PCIT's order to ensure the AO's fresh assessment is not influenced by the PCIT's observations.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective, and therefore, belated payments of employee contributions to PF & ESI made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable. It also held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the absence of exempt income.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and a settlement form was issued. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2004-05 were not valid and dismissed the Revenue's appeal for that year. For AY 2005-06 and 2006-07, certain issues were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not earned any exempt income, the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified. The AO erred in making the addition.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the assessee failed to disclose all material facts. The claim for depreciation was also dismissed as the assessee was not the owner of the bridge and the BOT agreement was cancelled.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and a settlement form was issued. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective, and therefore, belated payments of employee contributions to PF & ESI made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable. It also held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the absence of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in applying the previous year's valuation. It directed the AO to adopt the fair market value as determined by the valuation officer for the current year.

The Tribunal held that while there was a delay in payment of interest, the assessee failed to prove unlawful retention of money by the department. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that Section 244A of the Act only provides for interest on refund, not interest on interest.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and paid taxes, the substantive addition cannot survive. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and a settlement form was issued. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that neither the assessee's nor the AO's valuation of the property at the time of conversion was adequately justified. Similarly, the valuation of closing stock based on guideline value was also not accepted.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as the AO failed to examine all expenditures. However, it modified the PCIT's order to ensure the AO's fresh assessment is not influenced by the PCIT's observations.

The Tribunal found that the documents submitted by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits, particularly from property transactions and sale cancellation agreements, were not properly appreciated by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's approach of determining ALP to be Nil without applying any prescribed method was incorrect. The TPO's role is to determine ALP, not to adjudge the business necessity of services. The Tribunal also noted that similar payments were accepted in prior years.

The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities, stating that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the revised valuation of closing stock. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were confirmed.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn was made in light of the settlement under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the PCIT was barred by limitation as it was passed after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. Therefore, the revision order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to account for sales and purchases, leading to unaccounted income. The Tribunal estimated a profit rate of 7% on the unaccounted sales and directed the AO to recompute the income.

The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities, stating that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the revised valuation of closing stock. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were confirmed.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn was made in light of the settlement under the scheme.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn was made in light of the settlement under the scheme.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn was made in light of the settlement under the scheme.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn was made in light of the settlement under the scheme.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the bonus was paid before the extended due date for filing the return. It also directed the AO to ascertain if the gratuity amount was disallowed in earlier years and not claimed in the current year. If these conditions are met, the respective disallowances will be deleted.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The decision to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn was made in light of the settlement under the scheme.