ITAT Chennai Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A for unabated assessments require incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for disallowances under Section 40A(3) and additions to closing stock, these were deleted. The classification of land sale profit as business income was upheld, while protective additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in extrapolating the sale price of plots based on a single agreement, especially when other sale deeds at different rates were available. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of expenses under Section 40A(3) due to non-compliance with cash payment rules.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A for unabated assessments require incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for disallowances under Section 40A(3) and additions to closing stock, these were deleted. The classification of land sale profit as business income was upheld, while protective additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A for unabated assessments require incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for disallowances under Section 40A(3) and additions to closing stock, these were deleted. The classification of land sale profit as business income was upheld, while protective additions were deleted.

The tribunal noted that the disputed tax matter was settled under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return was attributable to the delay in the cooperative audit, which was not within the assessee's control. Considering the short delay and the assessee's eligibility for the deduction, the disallowance was deemed erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in extrapolating the sale price of plots based on a single agreement, especially when other sale deeds at different rates were available. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of expenses under Section 40A(3) due to non-compliance with cash payment rules.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in extrapolating the sale price of plots based on a single agreement, especially when other sale deeds at different rates were available. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of expenses under Section 40A(3) due to non-compliance with cash payment rules.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in extrapolating the sale price of plots based on a single agreement, especially when other sale deeds at different rates were available. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of expenses under Section 40A(3) due to non-compliance with cash payment rules.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion and audit objection, without any new material. The assessee had disclosed all material facts, and the auditor's omission in the tax audit report did not constitute negligence on the part of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion and audit objection, without any new material. The assessee had disclosed all material facts, and the auditor's omission in the tax audit report did not constitute negligence on the part of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in extrapolating the sale price of plots based on a single agreement, especially when other sale deeds at different rates were available. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of expenses under Section 40A(3) due to non-compliance with cash payment rules.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in extrapolating the sale price of plots based on a single agreement, especially when other sale deeds at different rates were available. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of expenses under Section 40A(3) due to non-compliance with cash payment rules.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in extrapolating the sale price of plots based on a single agreement, especially when other sale deeds at different rates were available. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of expenses under Section 40A(3) due to non-compliance with cash payment rules.

The Tribunal found that the applicability of the limitation period under Section 201(3) depends on whether the details of remittances to non-residents were included in the statements filed by the assessee. Since this fact was not clearly established, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that interest earned from co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2) as it is attributable to the society's activities. Similarly, income from video/still photography charges was also deemed eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2).

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the CBDT circular. For the assessee's appeal, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify if the recipient had included the royalty receipts in their income, as per the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia).

The Tribunal considered the application for withdrawal filed by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the delay in obtaining the confirmation letter constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the CBDT circular. For the assessee's appeal, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify if the recipient had included the royalty receipts in their income, as per the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia).

The tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 40A(3) as the assessee failed to prove any exceptional circumstances under Rule 6DD. However, the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was remanded for verification of declarations made by the recipient parties.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had relied on statements from customers without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine them, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal accepted additional evidence and directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the issue.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal is dismissed and the assessee's appeal is partly allowed. Regarding the addition under Section 68, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had relied on the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08. However, the Revenue argued that for AY 2012-13, the director of the investor companies confessed to providing accommodation entries for a commission. The Tribunal, in its consolidated order, did not explicitly detail its finding on this specific issue but indicated that the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. For the disallowance of lease rent under Section 40A(2)(b), the Tribunal found that the AO had not properly estimated the fair rent considering location, amenities, and prevailing market value, nor had it considered the procedures under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for reconsideration, following directions given in the assessee's own case for subsequent assessment years. On the validity of the assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's ground, finding that the assessment was completed consequent to a search operation where incriminating materials suggesting escapement of income were found. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's appeal was partly allowed and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal is dismissed and the assessee's appeal is partly allowed. Regarding the addition under Section 68, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had relied on the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08. However, the Revenue argued that for AY 2012-13, the director of the investor companies confessed to providing accommodation entries for a commission. The Tribunal, in its consolidated order, did not explicitly detail its finding on this specific issue but indicated that the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. For the disallowance of lease rent under Section 40A(2)(b), the Tribunal found that the AO had not properly estimated the fair rent considering location, amenities, and prevailing market value, nor had it considered the procedures under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for reconsideration, following directions given in the assessee's own case for subsequent assessment years. On the validity of the assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's ground, finding that the assessment was completed consequent to a search operation where incriminating materials suggesting escapement of income were found. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's appeal was partly allowed and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The ITAT held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, these amendments are not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, it is not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee is entitled to the deduction if the contributions were paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1).

The Tribunal decided to allow the appeals for statistical purposes and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The penalty appeal was also allowed as it was consequential to the quantum addition.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee could not fully discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction, the expenditure could not be disallowed solely because the payee did not file a return or respond to a notice. The AO was directed to estimate business income at 10% of business receipts.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, the deduction for employee contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is allowable.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate its claim with adequate documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance for the assessment years in question is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance for the assessment years in question is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable decisions from other High Courts and its own prior rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable decisions from other High Courts and its own previous rulings, the Tribunal ruled that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The core issue revolves around the AO's addition of capital gains based on the stamp duty valuation when the Valuation Officer's report was pending, and the assessee's objection to this approach.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal on technical grounds of delay. The delay in filing the appeal against the rectification order was attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the delay in filing the appeal against the intimation was linked to pursuing the alternate remedy. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable decisions from other High Courts and its own prior rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable decisions from other High Courts and its own prior rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(E) to reconsider the application for registration. The delay of 3 days was considered reasonable given the circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable decisions from other High Courts and its own prior rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable decisions from other High Courts and its own prior rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the issue of closing stock difference was outside the scope of the limited scrutiny for which the assessment was initially selected. The AO had no occasion to apply his mind to this issue.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable decisions from other High Courts and its own prior rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable decisions from other High Courts and its own prior rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable decisions from other High Courts and its own prior rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable decisions from other High Courts and its own prior rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable decisions from other High Courts and its own prior rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable decisions from other High Courts and its own prior rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.

The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble High Court had already set aside the assessment order in a writ petition filed by the assessee. Respectfully following the High Court's decision, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable decisions from other High Courts and its own prior rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.