ITAT Chennai Judgments — March 2022

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of 16.5% of work-in-progress, as the assessee failed to discharge its onus of proving the genuineness of payments and the work done by subcontractors.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of funds for the property purchase through various loans and adjustments, reversing the additions made by the AO and CIT(A). However, cash deposits in the bank account were upheld as unexplained.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO for AY 2015-16. The Tribunal found that the stock difference pertained to AY 2014-15, for which additional income was already offered and accepted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the reassessment was based on a change of opinion, as the AO had already examined the same facts during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the AO had dropped the penalty proceedings in a casual manner without proper application of mind. The Pr.CIT rightly set aside the AO's order as it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reliable estimate for provisions made for marked-to-market losses. The exemption claim was found to be without basis, and the CIT(A)'s action was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in directing the AO to recompute disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) by excluding strategic investments in group/subsidiary companies and investments not yielding exempt income. The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the cited Mumbai ITAT case.

The Tribunal held that the loss arising from the abandonment of the project and the irrecoverable advance is a capital loss. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions, this capital loss is allowable to be set off against capital gains arising from the sale of land during the same financial year.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer made a fundamental mistake in totaling the jewellery found. Considering the total jewellery found and the assessee's explanation, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were erroneous.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and did not consider the issues on their merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the addition related to the first issue, concerning the share of consideration for land sold, was confirmed as the evidence was not rebutted. However, for the second issue, regarding the repurchase of land, the Tribunal deleted the addition as it was based on inference without supporting evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict disallowances under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income. It also agreed with the deletion of additions under Section 57(iii) as the interest income was offered to tax. Furthermore, the Tribunal confirmed that Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable as the assessee was not a shareholder.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were not admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal, following High Court decisions, held that unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward without restriction, even if business operations have ceased, as per CBDT Circular No. 14/2001 and amended Section 32(2).

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed in the hands of a non-existent company is without jurisdiction and bad in law. The participation in proceedings by the assessee cannot operate as an estoppel against law.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not granting a proper opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing them to provide the assessee sufficient opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict disallowances under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income. It also agreed with the deletion of additions under Section 57(iii) as the interest income was offered to tax. Furthermore, the Tribunal confirmed that Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable as the assessee was not a shareholder.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of notional interest on the advance, noting that the recipient confirmed it was interest-free and later became insolvent. The AO's addition was considered bereft of merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following the jurisdictional High Court and a co-ordinate bench, the Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Therefore, belated remittances made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the four-year period without fulfilling the conditions of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The Tribunal also found that there was no new tangible material before the AO, indicating a change of opinion.

The Tribunal concurred with the AO and CIT(A) that the rental income should be treated as business income because the assessee managed the office complex as a business asset, providing services to tenants. Consequently, the claim for standard deduction was denied.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without allowing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the party whose statement was relied upon, violating principles of natural justice. The documentary evidence submitted by the assessee was overlooked.

The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under Section 148 during the pendency of regular assessment proceedings initiated under Section 142(1) is invalid. The reassessment order was also found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that notional interest costs are already taken care of under the TNMM method. Therefore, no separate upward adjustment on receivables for delayed payment is required. The addition made on this ground was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of funds for the property purchase through various loans and adjustments, reversing the additions made by the AO and CIT(A). However, cash deposits in the bank account were upheld as unexplained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of funds for the property purchase through various loans and adjustments, reversing the additions made by the AO and CIT(A). However, cash deposits in the bank account were upheld as unexplained.

The assessee's counsel filed a petition to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal, with no opposition from the Revenue, allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment on the same issue that was already examined during the original assessment, without any new information, amounts to a change of opinion. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were not admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were not admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were not admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were not admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were not admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were not admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were not admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were not admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were not admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict disallowances under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income. It also agreed with the deletion of additions under Section 57(iii) as the interest income was offered to tax. Furthermore, the Tribunal confirmed that Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable as the assessee was not a shareholder.

The tribunal, relying on the Madras High Court's decision in *Babuji Jacob*, found that the Assessing Officer failed to strike off the inappropriate charge in the penalty notice. It held that such a defective notice renders the penalty unsustainable and accordingly deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a sufficient opportunity of hearing and to pass a speaking and reasoned order. The assessee was directed to produce all relevant documents.

The Tribunal held that the AO had indeed considered the issue of employee's PF contribution and taken a view after examining the evidence. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and the PCIT's revision under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reliable estimate for provisions made for marked-to-market losses. The exemption claim was found to be without basis, and the CIT(A)'s action was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of notional interest on the advance, noting that the recipient confirmed it was interest-free and later became insolvent. The AO's addition was considered bereft of merit.

The Tribunal held that the investment in land prior to the sale of the original asset does not qualify for deduction under Section 54. Furthermore, the joint development agreement resulted in short-term capital gains that needed to be assessed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of notional interest on the advance, noting that the recipient confirmed it was interest-free and later became insolvent. The AO's addition was considered bereft of merit.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were vitiated due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, particularly Section 142(3). The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with all relied-upon material.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reliable estimate for provisions made for marked-to-market losses. The exemption claim was found to be without basis, and the CIT(A)'s action was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO is not prevented from acting on the DSIR report for R&D expenditure. For expenses relatable to exempt income, the Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income was earned. The issue of reconciliation of Form 26AS was remitted to the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided a speaking order with proper findings on how the expenditure was allowable. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to file a delay condonation petition with supporting evidence. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.