ITAT Chennai Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessment years, additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was referred to by the AO, the impugned additions/disallowances were unsustainable. For AY 2006-07, agricultural income was directed to be treated as Rs. 7.25 Lacs, and a slot fee addition was deleted. For AY 2007-08, agricultural income was directed to be treated as Rs. 1.75 Lacs.

The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessment years, additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was referred to by the AO, the impugned additions/disallowances were unsustainable. For AY 2006-07, agricultural income was directed to be treated as Rs. 7.25 Lacs, and a slot fee addition was deleted. For AY 2007-08, agricultural income was directed to be treated as Rs. 1.75 Lacs.

The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessment years, additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was referred to by the AO, the impugned additions/disallowances were unsustainable. For AY 2006-07, agricultural income was directed to be treated as Rs. 7.25 Lacs, and a slot fee addition was deleted. For AY 2007-08, agricultural income was directed to be treated as Rs. 1.75 Lacs.

The Tribunal held that for non-abated assessment years, additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was referred to by the AO, the impugned additions/disallowances were unsustainable. For AY 2006-07, agricultural income was directed to be treated as Rs. 7.25 Lacs, and a slot fee addition was deleted. For AY 2007-08, agricultural income was directed to be treated as Rs. 1.75 Lacs.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be allowed to claim the expenses incurred as she had engaged employees to assist her in her partner's activities and provided evidence of their engagement and payments. Similar expenses for another assessment year were also allowed.

The CIT(A) held that income from sale of shares should be taxed as capital gains, not business income, based on CBDT Circular No. 6/2016 and the shares being held for over 12 months as investments. The tribunal upheld this decision, also noting that a transaction with a holding company was not a transfer.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is allowable only to the extent of the actual provision made in the books of accounts, not exceeding the limits prescribed by the section. The CIT(A)'s order allowing a higher deduction was reversed.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the AO. This was based on a High Court order that condoned the delay in filing the return.

The Tribunal decided that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action of setting off profits notionally against brought forward losses, which amounted to reducing the loss twice. The assessee is entitled to a deduction of the lower of brought forward book loss or unabsorbed depreciation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(Exemptions)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish the required details.

The Tribunal directed the AO to consider 50% of the income as agricultural income and the balance as income from other sources, partly allowing the appeal on this issue. The addition of the refund of advance was deleted, allowing the appeal on this ground.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea that the delay was due to reasonable cause, as provided under Section 273B, considering the firm's facing multiple legal issues and staff discontinuity. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) as the container terminal was a new infrastructural facility jointly developed and the revenue was split. For Section 14A disallowances, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute based on investments yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) as the container terminal was a new infrastructural facility jointly developed and the revenue was split. For Section 14A disallowances, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute based on investments yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals concerning short-term capital gains, stating the issue was already decided and pending before the High Court, and could not be reopened under Section 154. For the partner remuneration issue, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh examination based on previous orders.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals concerning short-term capital gains, stating the issue was already decided and pending before the High Court, and could not be reopened under Section 154. For the partner remuneration issue, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh examination based on previous orders.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings. However, it found that the assessee had not sufficiently substantiated the source of the investments and therefore remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings. However, it found that the assessee had not sufficiently substantiated the source of the investments and therefore remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing re-computation of proportionate interest disallowance by excluding certain interest expenses and adjusting interest-free advances. It confirmed disallowances related to labour charges and other charges but remanded the hire charges disallowance for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the TPO for fresh determination of the arm's length price. This was based on the assessee filing audited segmental financial statements as additional evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's argument regarding acting as a commission agent needed further verification, especially concerning GST returns. Therefore, the issue of cash purchases was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing re-computation of proportionate interest disallowance by excluding certain interest expenses and adjusting interest-free advances. It confirmed disallowances related to labour charges and other charges but remanded the hire charges disallowance for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the issue of cash purchases needed further verification, especially regarding the assessee's claim of acting as a commission agent. For another year, the disallowance of depreciation on an Effluent Treatment Plant was also set aside for re-examination.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to re-compute the proportionate disallowance of interest after excluding interest on car loans and reducing interest-free advances. It confirmed disallowances for labour charges and other charges but remanded the hire charges disallowance for re-computation.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 68, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of commodity trading and offered the net profit for taxation. The AO's suspicion was not enough to make the addition.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing substantial justice over technicalities and the assessee's prima facie merits. The Tribunal further held that the PCIT erred in revising the assessment order as it was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's argument regarding acting as a commission agent needed further verification, especially concerning GST returns. Therefore, the issue of cash purchases was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that interest on loans for an abandoned project, where no capital asset was ultimately put to use, should be treated as revenue expenditure and allowed as a deduction. The reopening of assessment was considered valid due to escapement of income on another issue.

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(7)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which allows deduction for provisions made towards an approved gratuity fund or gratuity payable during the year, overrides Section 43B. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct necessary inquiries and verifications concerning sundry creditors and contract receipts. Therefore, the PCIT was justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the taxability of corpus donations when exemption under Section 11 is denied is a debatable issue. Therefore, it cannot be considered for rectification under Section 154 of the Act, as it requires fresh determination of facts and statutory interpretation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It directed the AO to recalculate the gross profit at 18.02% and allowed 50% of certain claimed expenses.

The Tribunal held that the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 extended the time for filing appeals due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order rejecting the appeal was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It directed the AO to recalculate the gross profit at 18.02% and allowed 50% of certain claimed expenses.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary inquiries and verifications regarding the issues identified for limited scrutiny. Therefore, the PCIT was justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of remuneration as the assessee claimed deduction exceeding the amount debited to the P&L account. Similarly, excess interest on partners' capital was disallowed as it exceeded the permissible rate under Section 40(b)(iv).