ITAT Chennai Judgments — August 2022

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the case on its merits and had not considered the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the audit report was filed before the processing of the return under Section 143(1) was completed, the assessee is entitled to the deduction. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. and the Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. AKS Alloys (P.) Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the AO was bound by the ITAT's directions and had no option but to give effect to them. Therefore, the AO's order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, making the revision under Section 263 unjustified.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's primary activity of borrowing funds and lending them at a higher interest rate, even with a noble objective, amounts to money lending business. Therefore, it does not qualify as a charitable purpose eligible for registration under Section 12AA.

The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked in the hands of the shareholder when the company's assessment, which treated these expenses as business expenses, was already completed. Therefore, the addition made by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee consistently used the average cost method for stock valuation and the AO did not find any discrepancy in the quantity of stock. Therefore, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was justified.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio because the reasons for reopening were not communicated to the assessee, which is a mandatory procedural requirement. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was also deleted based on established judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,40,000/- under Section 69A without proper appreciation of the facts and evidence. The assessee's audited financials and books of accounts, which reflected the cash deposits, were not adequately considered.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's plea to submit additional evidence and restored all issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine the issues in light of the new documents.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee claimed exempt income, the AO was justified in invoking Section 14A and making the disallowance. The orders of the lower authorities were affirmed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was already settled before the ITSC, no further additions could be made. Furthermore, the additions were based on third-party information without concrete evidence linking the assessee to the alleged cash deposits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a revised working showing that the application of income, excluding the disputed provisions, was 85.27%. This revised computation was not controverted by the CIT(E) or the revenue. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s order under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be made while computing book profit under Section 115JB. This decision was based on precedents from the Karnataka High Court and a Special Bench of the ITAT.

The Tribunal found that the order under Section 143(1) was cryptic and it was unclear if an opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT, the appeals filed by the Revenue were liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) exceeded his jurisdiction by initiating revisionary proceedings under Section 263 when the matter was already concluded under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revision order was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the order under Section 143(1) was cryptic and it was unclear if an opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT, the appeals filed by the Revenue were liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals.

The Tribunal held that sales promotion expenses were not allowable as they were not substantiated with proper evidence and were linked to search operations. However, for certain assessment years, issues related to slump sale and advances written-off were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that sales promotion expenses were not allowable as they were not substantiated with proper evidence and were linked to search operations. However, for certain assessment years, issues related to slump sale and advances written-off were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that sales promotion expenses were not allowable as they were not substantiated with proper evidence and were linked to search operations. However, for certain assessment years, issues related to slump sale and advances written-off were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that sales promotion expenses were not allowable as they were not substantiated with proper evidence and were linked to search operations. However, for certain assessment years, issues related to slump sale and advances written-off were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that sales promotion expenses were not allowable as they were not substantiated with proper evidence and were linked to search operations. However, for certain assessment years, issues related to slump sale and advances written-off were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that sales promotion expenses were not allowable as they were not substantiated with proper evidence and were linked to search operations. However, for certain assessment years, issues related to slump sale and advances written-off were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that sales promotion expenses were not allowable as they were not substantiated with proper evidence and were linked to search operations. However, for certain assessment years, issues related to slump sale and advances written-off were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that sales promotion expenses were not allowable as they were not substantiated with proper evidence and were linked to search operations. However, for certain assessment years, issues related to slump sale and advances written-off were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that sales promotion expenses were not allowable as they were not substantiated with proper evidence and were linked to search operations. However, for certain assessment years, issues related to slump sale and advances written-off were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to impute guarantee commission at 0.5% on corporate guarantees, following a High Court decision. The appeals concerning Section 14A disallowances were to be decided afresh.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to impute guarantee commission at 0.5% on corporate guarantees, following a High Court decision. The appeals concerning Section 14A disallowances were to be decided afresh.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to impute guarantee commission at 0.5% on corporate guarantees, following a High Court decision. The appeals concerning Section 14A disallowances were to be decided afresh.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to impute guarantee commission at 0.5% on corporate guarantees, following a High Court decision. The appeals concerning Section 14A disallowances were to be decided afresh.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to impute guarantee commission at 0.5% on corporate guarantees, following a High Court decision. The appeals concerning Section 14A disallowances were to be decided afresh.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to impute guarantee commission at 0.5% on corporate guarantees, following a High Court decision. The appeals concerning Section 14A disallowances were to be decided afresh.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for unexplained credit, finding that the assessee successfully reconciled the differences with the firm. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of unexplained investment, agreeing that the assessee had sufficient funds based on the provided cash flow statement.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer could not reject the audited books of account based on general observations. Considering the historical net profit margins of the assessee, the Tribunal determined that an estimation at 3% would be reasonable.

The Tribunal rejected the condonation petition for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found the medical certificate lacked proper details of treatment and medical history.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to impute guarantee commission at 0.5% on corporate guarantees, following a High Court decision. The appeals concerning Section 14A disallowances were to be decided afresh.

The Tribunal held that sales promotion expenses were not allowable as they were not substantiated with proper evidence and were linked to search operations. However, for certain assessment years, issues related to slump sale and advances written-off were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that it was incorrect to adopt two methods for the same class of transactions and that cherry-picking a small portion of transactions for a different method was not justified. The TPO erred in applying the CUP method for a small percentage of transactions when TNMM was accepted for the overwhelming majority.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) had not assigned valid reasons for rejecting the business loss claim and had failed to adjudicate the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the waiver of the loan, which was originally a capital advance for purchasing fixed assets, did not alter its capital nature. The CIT(A) had rightly concluded that the loan waiver was capital in nature and not taxable as business income.

The Tribunal held that the brand valuation was done by a valuer and the transfer was for consideration in the form of shares. The disallowance of depreciation on brand value was not justified. The revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax was also quashed as the issue was already adjudicated in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the brand valuation was done by a valuer and the transfer was for consideration in the form of shares. The disallowance of depreciation on brand value was not justified. The revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax was also quashed as the issue was already adjudicated in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the brand valuation was done by a valuer and the transfer was for consideration in the form of shares. The disallowance of depreciation on brand value was not justified. The revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax was also quashed as the issue was already adjudicated in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if remuneration received for a film was offered to tax in subsequent years, and if so, to delete the addition. For cost of improvement, the AO was directed to treat 20% of the aggregate cost as the cost of improvement. Certain other grounds were allowed, dismissed, or partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the farmhouse was an integral part of the agricultural land used for agricultural purposes and thus qualified for exemption under Section 10(37). The separate valuation did not negate its integral nature.

The Tribunal held that the brand valuation was done by a valuer and the transfer was for consideration in the form of shares. The disallowance of depreciation on brand value was not justified. The revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax was also quashed as the issue was already adjudicated in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if remuneration received for a film was offered to tax in subsequent years, and if so, to delete the addition. For cost of improvement, the AO was directed to treat 20% of the aggregate cost as the cost of improvement. Certain other grounds were allowed, dismissed, or partly allowed.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if remuneration received for a film was offered to tax in subsequent years, and if so, to delete the addition. For cost of improvement, the AO was directed to treat 20% of the aggregate cost as the cost of improvement. Certain other grounds were allowed, dismissed, or partly allowed.