ITAT Chennai Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal held that a prerequisite for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is 'tax sought to be evaded'. Since there was no additional tax liability arising from the reclassification of income, no penalty could be levied.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal held that the cessation of bank liability in AY 2006-07 was to be considered in the hands of the assessee and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. For AY 2009-10, the addition in the hands of the SPV was deleted as the issue was already decided in AY 2006-07. The assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10 was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the matter of cessation of bank liability needed fresh consideration by the Tribunal, uninfluenced by previous observations. For AY 2009-10, the addition in the hands of the assessee was deleted, and the revenue's appeal for the SPV was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if a penalty under Section 271A for not maintaining books of account is already levied.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that no such penalty can be levied if Section 271A penalty is applicable due to non-maintenance of books.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided sufficient. It also deleted penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents where penalties under Section 271A were already levied for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that preclude such penalties when Section 271A penalties are applicable for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided sufficient. It also deleted penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that no such penalty can be levied if books of account were not maintained and penalty under Section 271A was already imposed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits with a speaking order, rather than dismissing it for default. An ex-parte order without adjudicating the issues is not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that reopening beyond 4 years was invalid as the assessee had disclosed all material facts. It also noted that the AO's action constituted a 'change of opinion' based on existing material, which is not permissible for reopening.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking on both the jurisdictional issue of reopening and the merits of the addition. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided sufficient. It also deleted penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents where penalties under Section 271A were already levied for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees sufficient. It also deleted penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents where no penalty under 271B is leviable if penalty under 271A for not maintaining books of account is already levied.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be sufficient. The Tribunal also deleted the penalties levied under Section 271B, following High Court precedents that state no penalty under Section 271B can be levied if penalty under Section 271A is already imposed for not maintaining books of account.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided sufficient. It then addressed the jurisdictional issue regarding assessments under Section 153A/153C and the validity of penalties under Section 271B.

The Tribunal found that the mistake in declaring total credits in the profit and loss account was rectifiable and remanded the matter to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the interest disallowance, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify if the recipient (Airport Authority of India) had included the income in their returns. For the TDS credit, the AO was directed to verify the evidence and allow the claim.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the interest disallowance, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify if the recipient (Airport Authority of India) had included the income in their returns. For the TDS credit, the AO was directed to verify the evidence and allow the claim.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Therefore, payments made within the due date for filing the return of income are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Therefore, payments made within the due date for filing the return of income are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2.20 crores as unexplained cash deposits. The sale agreement and the link between the cash deposit and the sale of agricultural land were not adequately considered.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) itself was not attracted as the payments for BDC did not require TDS, based on a High Court decision. Therefore, the issue of whether these disallowances were eligible for deduction under Sections 10A and 10AA became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeals should be dismissed. It found no material to prove the nexus between alleged fund withdrawals and deposits, and that the allegations of fund diversion remained unsubstantiated. The assessee's cross-objection was allowed by deleting the addition.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) itself was not attracted as the payments for BDC did not require TDS, based on a High Court decision. Therefore, the issue of whether these disallowances were eligible for deduction under Sections 10A and 10AA became infructuous.