ITAT Chennai Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal held that the assessee was provided insufficient time to respond to the show cause notice, especially considering the Covid-19 period. Therefore, the revision orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was provided insufficient time to respond to the show cause notice, especially considering the Covid-19 period. Therefore, the revision orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the 5th proviso to Section 32(1) was not applicable to the facts of the case as the goodwill arose from the amalgamation itself, not from the amalgamating company. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous, and the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on funds temporarily parked before business commencement is a capital receipt and not taxable as income from other sources. This decision was based on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on funds temporarily parked before business commencement is a capital receipt and not taxable as income from other sources. This decision was based on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that once additional income is credited to the profit and loss account, corresponding expenditures should also be debited. The Assessing Officer erred in making an addition on undisclosed income when the assessee had already accounted for it and incurred related expenses.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished all particulars in its return, and the disallowance of claims by the Revenue does not automatically amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was deleted based on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's case was covered under Section 271AAB(1)(a) as they admitted undisclosed income, specified its derivation, and furnished a return declaring it, even though no tax was payable due to a net loss. Therefore, the penalty should be levied at 10%.

The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with taxing excess share premium, cannot be invoked as the shares were allotted in the financial year 2010-11, prior to the section's effective date of April 1, 2013.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed a violation of natural justice and could not produce all necessary details before the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh verification of evidence.

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, these amendments are not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the arguments presented.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Since the assessment year in question is 2018-19, the amended provisions are not applicable. The deduction is allowable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1).

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the arguments presented.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the arguments presented.

The tribunal held that the write-off of advance for equity shares is a capital loss and disallowed. However, it directed the AO to verify and exclude the recovery of this advance in the subsequent year as it would also be a capital loss. The disallowance under Section 14A was set aside for re-verification.

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 tribunal held that the write-off of advance for equity shares is a capital loss and disallowed. However, it directed the AO to verify and exclude the recovery of this advance in the subsequent year as it would also be a capital loss. The disallowance under Section 14A was set aside for re-verification.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Since the payment was made before the due date of filing the return of income, the deduction is allowable.

The ITAT, while agreeing with the CIT-DR that requisite details were not filed, restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication to grant the assessee another opportunity. The assessee was directed to file necessary details and substantiate the application.

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 ruled in favor of the assessee.

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 2018-19 was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made for the assessment year 2019-20 is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable. Following favorable judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the impugned fees and re-computation of the demand.

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 ruled in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271AAB is discretionary and not mandatory. The AO has the discretion to impose penalty based on a judicious decision after considering all relevant aspects of the case.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A was not justified as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds for investments. For the freight charges issue, the Tribunal ruled that belated filing of TDS statements does not warrant disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), but penalty can be levied.

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, the disallowance made for assessment years prior to the amendment is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A was not justified as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds for investments. For the freight charges issue, the Tribunal ruled that belated filing of TDS statements does not warrant disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), but penalty can be levied.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A was not justified as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds for investments. For the freight charges issue, the Tribunal ruled that belated filing of TDS statements does not warrant disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), but penalty can be levied.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A was not justified as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds for investments. For the freight charges issue, the Tribunal ruled that belated filing of TDS statements does not warrant disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), but penalty can be levied.

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 ruled in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the amendments made 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 not applicable.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution is paid on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1), the deduction is allowable. Amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 are prospective.

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, they are not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271AAB is discretionary and not mandatory. The AO has the discretion to impose penalty based on a judicious decision after considering all relevant aspects of the case.

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, the disallowance made for assessment years prior to the amendment is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year 2018-19, the deduction is allowable if paid before the due date of filing the return of income.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective. Since the assessment year was 2018-19, the amended provisions were not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance for belated remittance of employee's contribution to PF & ESI is not justified if paid before the due date of filing the return of income. The amendment by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. The issue of TDS was to be verified by the AO.

The Tribunal held that while the assessment order might be considered erroneous due to delayed TDS remittance, it was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessee was entitled to claim the deduction in the subsequent year.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable. Following favorable judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the impugned fees and re-computation of the demand.

The Tribunal held that the assessee satisfactorily explained sources for Rs. 71,80,000/- from own sources and Rs. 2,20,00,000/- from booking advances. The issue of stamp duty and registration fees was remanded for further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate the source of the deposit, failing which the CIT(A) could proceed based on the available material.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A was not justified as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds for investments. For the freight charges issue, the Tribunal ruled that belated filing of TDS statements does not warrant disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), but penalty can be levied.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had presented new reconciliation statements before it. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO for a fresh assessment, considering all evidence including the new statements.

The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B are prospective. Since the contributions were paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable.

The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with taxing excess share premium, cannot be invoked as the shares were allotted in the financial year 2010-11, prior to the section's effective date of April 1, 2013.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted due inquiry and applied his mind before allowing the expenses, forming a possible view. Therefore, the PCIT erred in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 as the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, citing principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to substantiate their case, failing which the CIT(A) could proceed based on available material.