ITAT Chennai Judgments — August 2022

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 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The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued the relevant forms. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied solely because the new residential house was constructed on land owned by the assessee's husband and registered in his name, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued the relevant forms. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application was rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the firm's profit and the assessee's share percentage were correctly reflected in the firm's audited accounts and its return. Therefore, the differential amount added by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the issues in line with previous tribunal directions. Consequently, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the issues in line with previous tribunal directions. Consequently, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element of the undisclosed contract receipts should be assessed, not the gross amount. The AO was directed to apply a reasonable profit rate to the undisclosed receipts.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not fully explain the source of the Rs. 8.85 Lacs. However, considering the assessee maintains books of accounts and was subjected to tax audit, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not obtaining a remand report before considering the assessee's submissions regarding the explanation of certain transactions. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The PCIT's order was set aside because it violated the principles of natural justice by not giving the assessee a proper hearing.

The Tribunal, while agreeing with the CIT(A)'s observations, granted the assessee another opportunity to present their case on merits before the first appellate authority. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000 to be paid by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the letting of the factory building and the plant & machinery were inseparable, as evidenced by the identical terms and conditions in the separate lease agreements. Therefore, the rental income from both was rightly assessed as 'Income from other sources'.

The Tribunal held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable in law does not, by itself, amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Following Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal found no evidence of hidden income or contumacious conduct.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim 20% of the deferred revenue expenditure in the current year, similar to previous years. Therefore, the restriction imposed by the AO was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to file a condonation petition before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is to first decide on the condonation and then, if admitted, adjudicate the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the assessee's submissions, including the use of old stamp paper for the sale agreement and the failure to refund the advance as per the agreement. However, since the AO did not make any inquiries with the purchaser, the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment solely on third-party information without further scrutiny, and without establishing the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, was not permissible. The reassessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 12,00,000 as unexplained cash deposit. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation regarding the sources of the individuals who allegedly paid the advances and whether the sale agreements were finalized or the advances were returned.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the issues in line with previous tribunal directions. Consequently, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating it was filed before the wrong bench. The appeal was deemed invalid and infructuous due to lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that since the addition of agricultural income as unexplained income was already under appeal before the CIT(A), the doctrine of merger applied. Therefore, the PCIT lacked jurisdiction to revise the assessment order under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 153A for the assessment year 2008-09, as it fell outside the permissible period. The assessment framed under Section 153A was therefore considered bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 153A for assessment year 2008-09, as it fell outside the permissible period. The assessment framed under Section 153A was deemed bad and illegal.

The Tribunal held that the revision order on the claim of deduction under Section 54 was academic as the Assessing Officer had already examined and accepted it. Furthermore, the issue of rental income was not part of the original limited scrutiny and thus could not be raised in revision proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was not a speaking order and lacked proper consideration of evidence. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the AO had properly examined the issue of exempt income and Section 14A disallowance, forming a correct opinion. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the issues in line with previous tribunal directions. Consequently, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the issues in line with previous tribunal directions. Consequently, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 90,000 as income from other sources, finding that the assessee failed to prove cultivation and earning of agricultural income. However, for the other disputed amounts, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanations reasonable and deleted the additions.

The Tribunal held that since the addition of agricultural income as unexplained income was already under appeal before the CIT(A), the doctrine of merger applied. Therefore, the PCIT lacked jurisdiction to revise the assessment order under Section 263.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of unexplained money as the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his claims before the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Tribunal, by following a coordinate bench's order for earlier assessment years, held that the profit on the sale of undivided share of land should be treated as long-term capital gains. However, the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A for earning exempt income was confirmed.

The Tribunal found that various issues, including foreign exchange loss, diesel usage, Provident Fund and ESI payments, Guarantee Fee, and Section 14A disallowance, required further adjudication. Consequently, all issues were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment solely on third-party information without further scrutiny, and without establishing the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, was not permissible. The reassessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element of the undisclosed contract receipts should be assessed, not the gross amount. The AO was directed to apply a reasonable profit rate to the undisclosed receipts.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, holding that interest earned on funds kept in fixed deposits during the pre-operative period is a capital receipt and should reduce the cost of assets.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, holding that interest earned on funds kept in fixed deposits during the pre-operative period is a capital receipt and should reduce the cost of assets.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, holding that interest earned on funds kept in fixed deposits during the pre-operative period is a capital receipt and should reduce the cost of assets.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had taken inconsistent stands and that the lower authorities had not fully adjudicated the issue. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's inquiry to be cryptic and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the loan details and its purpose.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the ground regarding the reopening of the assessment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was remanded back for adjudication of the reopening issue first.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of unexplained money as the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his claims before the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 153A for assessment year 2008-09, as it fell outside the permissible period. The assessment framed under Section 153A was deemed bad and illegal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a lessee, is entitled to the deduction of gross lease rental payments. The principal portion of lease payments made by the assessee is considered revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the issues in line with previous tribunal directions. Consequently, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal held that once the R&D facility is approved, the entire expenditure incurred for the whole assessment year should be allowed for weighted deduction, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.