ITAT Chennai Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to substantiate his case before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not attracted as the payments for BDC did not require TDS, based on a High Court decision. Consequently, the grounds related to the eligibility of these disallowances for Sections 10A and 10AA deductions became infructuous.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54F was not valid as the property was not in his name, the addition as unexplained investment was excessive. The Tribunal directed that only 10% of the amount should be considered unexplained.

The Tribunal held that impairment losses should be treated as non-operating expenditure and directed the TPO to re-compute the assessee's Profit Level Indicator (PLI). It also directed the exclusion of a comparable entity and deleted the Transfer Pricing adjustment for management fees.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper adjudication on merits, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given another opportunity to substantiate their case before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded.

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 AO did not provide any material to demonstrate that the directors' remuneration was excessive or unreasonable considering market rates, business needs, or benefits derived. The directors had also paid taxes on this remuneration.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition after the assessee provided confirmations and bank statements, and the Assessing Officer failed to respond to a remand report request. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus.

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 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 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 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 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, in view of the assessee's submission and no objection from the revenue, permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The tribunal noted that a consequential order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 accepted the returned income. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular was not applicable as gifts were distributed to distributors, not doctors, and the expenses were a normal business practice. However, it reduced the disallowance from 10% to 5% of the net expenditure, considering the documentary evidence provided.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Principal Commissioner under section 263 of the Act was in accordance with law and no interference was warranted. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's claim for exemption under section 54G of the Act without making any proper inquiry. Specifically, the Assessing Officer did not investigate the amalgamation between the assessee and M/s. Ravilla Aerospace Industries P. Ltd. nor did he verify the conditions laid down in the Act for claiming exemption under section 54G. The assessee's own letter indicated that the company had ceased business operations long before the claim, possessing only land, old buildings, and machinery. The PCIT, in his revision order, had detailed these lapses and correctly pointed out that the assessee was likely not eligible for the exemption. Therefore, the assessment order was considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, justifying the PCIT's action. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263. The Assessing Officer had examined the purchases and taken a possible view by estimating the gross profit, which was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were defective as they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied. This failure to specify the charge vitiated the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had correctly initiated penalty proceedings under both Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271AAB, as separate notices were issued. The PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was found to be based on an incorrect assumption that the AO had not initiated the correct penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that additions made based solely on loose papers and uncorroborated statements are not valid. Admissions made during search can be retracted with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that additions made based solely on loose papers and uncorroborated statements are not valid. Admissions made during search can be retracted with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were defective as they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied. This failure to specify the charge vitiated the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were defective as they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied. This failure to specify the charge vitiated the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were defective as they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied. This failure to specify the charge vitiated the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were defective as they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied. This failure to specify the charge vitiated the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were defective as they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied. This failure to specify the charge vitiated the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were defective as they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied. This failure to specify the charge vitiated the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were defective as they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied. This failure to specify the charge vitiated the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the rental income was not commercial in nature and did not vitiate the charitable objects of the trust, especially since it was a small percentage of the total receipts and aimed at helping the poor and middle class.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular was not applicable as gifts were distributed to distributors, not doctors, and the expenses were a normal business practice. However, it reduced the disallowance from 10% to 5% of the net expenditure, considering the documentary evidence provided.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making additions solely based on the low income declared by creditors, as long as identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness are established through documents like confirmations, bank statements, and ITRs. The onus shifts to the Revenue to prove otherwise once the assessee discharges their initial burden.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s observation that the assessee failed to establish a sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were rightly dismissed.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals due to inordinate and unsubstantiated delays. The assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the late filing.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals on the grounds of limitation. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal adopted the view that favored the assessee, stating 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 High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal adopted the view that favored the assessee, stating 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 High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal adopted the view that favored the assessee, stating 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 High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal adopted the view that favored the assessee, stating 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 High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal adopted the view that favored the assessee, stating 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 High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal adopted the view that favored the assessee, stating 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 High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal adopted the view that favored the assessee, stating that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.

The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeals by the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. No new material was presented to justify the delay.

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 disallowances made for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 were incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed an affidavit for condonation of delay which was overlooked by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after considering the condonation of delay.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s observation that the assessee failed to establish a sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were rightly dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable. Following favorable High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal adopted the view that favored the assessee, stating that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective.

The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeals by the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. No new material was presented to justify the delay.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s observation that the assessee failed to establish a sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were rightly dismissed.