ITAT Chennai Judgments — April 2022

The Tribunal held that while the estimation of income at 5% was reasonable, it should be assessed as 'Business Income' and not as unaccounted money under Section 69A, as the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's business.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have allowed the assessee to file a condonation petition. The matter was set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the condonation petition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of establishing the identity of the lenders, their creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transactions by furnishing necessary documentary evidence. The Tribunal found that the loans were received through banking channels and the circumstances for obtaining interest-free loans were explained.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. The disallowance for TDS compliance was directed to be verified and deleted if Form 26A was in order.

The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance for the assessment year 2019-20 was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance for the assessment year 2019-20 was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions are paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendment introducing Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va) was held to be prospective.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions are paid on or before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, was held to be prospective.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the inordinate delay and the absence of any valid reason for condonation. No representation was made by the assessee to justify the delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The tribunal dismissed the first appeal due to the un-condoned delay and lack of supporting evidence for the delay. The second appeal was also dismissed as the tribunal was not inclined to interfere with the rectification order given the dismissal of the main appeal.

The tribunal dismissed the first appeal due to the un-condoned delay and lack of supporting evidence for the delay. The second appeal was also dismissed as the tribunal was not inclined to interfere with the rectification order given the dismissal of the main appeal.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. This decision followed established legal precedents from the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication denovo, citing principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case, failing which the CIT(A) could proceed based on available material.

The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case, and an adequate opportunity of hearing was to be granted.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to reconcile the stock differences, and an adequate opportunity of hearing was to be granted.

The Tribunal found that while the amendment extending additional depreciation to power generation was effective from AY 2013-14, the assessee's claim might be eligible if the additional depreciation was related to its manufacturing activities of windmills. The matter was remanded for a finding on this aspect.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Development Commissioner, acting under delegated powers, is sufficient for claiming deduction under Section 10B. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions are paid on or before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, was held to be prospective.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Development Commissioner, acting under delegated powers, is sufficient for claiming deduction under Section 10B. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had settled the dispute by paying the tax amount as per the scheme and submitted the relevant form. Therefore, there was no purpose in continuing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot resort to Section 14A without recording satisfaction on the correctness of the assessee's claim. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd., the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had already examined the issues during scrutiny assessment. The differences in property values were within permissible limits, and the cost of improvements and acquisition were considered.

The Tribunal held that the income/loss from eligible units must be aggregated with income/loss from non-eligible units for computing gross total income. Consequently, the set-off of loss from an 80IC eligible unit against profits of non-eligible units is permissible.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot resort to Section 14A without recording satisfaction on the correctness of the assessee's claim. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd., the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion, without any new tangible material. The assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without adjudicating the issue of fair market value. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for proper consideration of the assessee's objections regarding the DVO's valuation.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion, without any new tangible material. The assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 was quashed.

The Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case, directed the CIT(E) to grant registration under Section 12AA. It also directed the CIT(E) to grant approval under Section 80G(5)(vi) upon obtaining the 12AA registration.

The Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case, directed the CIT(E) to grant registration under Section 12AA. It also directed the CIT(E) to grant approval under Section 80G(5)(vi) upon obtaining the 12AA registration.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed to have provided evidence, including a bank statement and confirmation letter from Bajaj Promoters Pvt Ltd., to explain the credit. The Tribunal noted that the AO's basis for addition was the lack of evidence, which the assessee disputed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any explanation for the cash transactions in her bank account. Therefore, the peak credit principle could not be applied, and the assessment made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed.

The Tribunal noted that while the initial disallowance was based on the nature of payment, the amended provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) and Supreme Court rulings allow for non-disallowance if recipients offer the income for tax. Since this was not verified by the AO, the issue was remanded.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment based solely on an audit objection, without any fresh tangible material, amounted to a change of opinion by the AO. The AO had already applied his mind to the issue during the original assessment.

The Tribunal noted that an identical order in a group case had remanded the matter back to the AO. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remanded the matter to the AO to reframe the assessment in light of the outcome of the settlement application filed by the assessee's group.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. However, the addition of Rs. 86,500/- for cash deposits was deleted as it was received through banking channels from a share broker. The addition of Rs. 1,26,000/- for opening cash balance was also deleted as the assessee's net wealth was below the taxable limit for wealth tax.

The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, holding that the forex loss on loan for working capital is revenue in nature. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere as the revenue failed to prove the loss was capital in nature or covered by Section 43A.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order confirming the additions for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee's plea for another opportunity to present evidence was rejected due to the lack of satisfactory explanation provided earlier.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order confirming the additions for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee's plea for another opportunity to present evidence was rejected due to the lack of satisfactory explanation provided earlier.

The Tribunal held that the Rs. 7 crores should be taxed as Long Term Capital Gains, with Rs. 15 crores as sale consideration and Rs. 8 crores as cost of acquisition, dismissing the assessee's plea for it to be treated as a capital receipt or income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that the Rs. 7 crores should be taxed as Long Term Capital Gains, with Rs. 15 crores as sale consideration and Rs. 8 crores as cost of acquisition, dismissing the assessee's plea for it to be treated as a capital receipt or income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. However, the addition of Rs. 86,500/- for cash deposits was deleted as it was received through banking channels from a share broker. The addition of Rs. 1,26,000/- for opening cash balance was also deleted as the assessee's net wealth was below the taxable limit for wealth tax.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) due to pending customs proceedings, and the CIT(A) did not discuss the merits. To ensure natural justice, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal considered the fact that the assessees had filed applications for withdrawal of appeals as infructuous due to settlement under the Vivad se Viswas Act. Both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Regarding the CENVAT credit reversal, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-examination with supporting evidence. For the withholding tax, the Tribunal held it to be a cost of borrowing deductible under Section 37(1) and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as no details or proof for the excess expenditure claim were provided before it. The order of the CIT(A) was found to be without infirmity.

The Tribunal considered the fact that the assessees had filed applications for withdrawal of appeals as infructuous due to settlement under the Vivad se Viswas Act. Both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer relied solely on external records (electricity, corporation) while ignoring an inspector's report confirming the property's use as a hospital. The Tribunal also observed inconsistent treatment of similar claims in other assessment years.