ITAT Chennai Judgments — September 2022

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions are paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it due to reasonable cause. It also set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have examined the issues independently for each assessment year. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made necessary inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation, taking a possible view. Therefore, the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the PCIT had become infructuous. This was because the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) had subsequently passed an order considering the entire issue of unexplained loans for multiple assessment years, including the year in question, and had accepted the assessee's explanation and assessed the income accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the transaction was a sale of plot to the builder in lieu of monetary consideration and four flats, thus constituting capital gains. It also held that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 54F, as the term 'a residential house' can include multiple units.

The Tribunal found that the alleged authorized representative before the CIT(A) was indeed not authorized by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. It also held that Section 14A disallowances cannot be imported for the computation of book profit under Section 115JB, following established precedents.

The Tribunal held that the difference in price was negligible after considering the additional processing costs incurred by the Guwahati unit. It also noted that the valuation declared for central excise duty was accepted by the excise authorities, strengthening the assessee's case.

The Tribunal held that the difference in price was negligible after considering the additional processing costs incurred by the Guwahati unit. It also noted that the valuation declared for central excise duty was accepted by the excise authorities, strengthening the assessee's case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to the company's dissolution, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the difference in price was negligible after considering the additional processing costs incurred by the Guwahati unit. It also noted that the valuation declared for central excise duty was accepted by the excise authorities, strengthening the assessee's case.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in adding the entire amount of alleged cash received to the assessee's income without sufficient evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had requested cross-examination of a witness, which was not properly considered.

The Tribunal held that maintenance charges attributable to services provided are to be considered as 'income from other sources', reversing the lower authorities' findings.

The Tribunal held that the difference in price was negligible after considering the additional processing costs incurred by the Guwahati unit. It also noted that the valuation declared for central excise duty was accepted by the excise authorities, strengthening the assessee's case.

The Tribunal held that the provision for warranty is not an expenditure incurred but a contingent liability, hence not deductible. It also held that interest on advances to subsidiary companies was not allowable as the assessee failed to demonstrate commercial expediency and prior decisions were against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish commercial expediency for advancing loans to subsidiary companies, thus upholding the disallowance of interest expenditure. However, it directed that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish commercial expediency for advancing loans to subsidiary companies, thus upholding the disallowance of interest expenditure. However, it directed that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish commercial expediency for advancing loans to subsidiary companies, thus upholding the disallowance of interest expenditure. However, it directed that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish commercial expediency for advancing loans to subsidiary companies, thus upholding the disallowance of interest expenditure. However, it directed that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea that the actual outflow during the year was Rs. 15.31 Lacs. Therefore, the addition was restricted to this amount, considering the actual outflows during the relevant year.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the CUP method was not justified, especially since it was accepted in prior years without any change in facts. The Tribunal also directed that the corporate guarantee fee should be benchmarked at 0.5%.

The Tribunal held that while the Directorate's report indicated the shares were penny stock, the AO failed to provide the assessee with a copy of the report or an opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were used against her. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and paid the dues. Since the respondent did not oppose the submissions, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the difference in price was negligible after considering the additional processing costs incurred by the Guwahati unit. It also noted that the valuation declared for central excise duty was accepted by the excise authorities, strengthening the assessee's case.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any evidence to support the claim of rental income, the explanation offered by the assessee for the cash deposits could not be accepted. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of accounting, where the increased sale value was credited as income and the same amount debited as expenses, effectively nullified the impact of Section 43CA without substantiating the expenses with evidence. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's consistent accounting method of recognizing retention money on receipt basis, while claiming expenses on accrual basis, was approved by the Tribunal in earlier years and should be followed.

The Tribunal found that the alleged authorized representative before the CIT(A) was indeed not authorized by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had considered the issue of import purchases and accepted the assessee's declared value with supporting evidence. Therefore, the PCIT could not substitute their view and invoke Section 263.

The Tribunal found that the AO had examined the entire issue and taken a possible view. The Tribunal disagreed with the PCIT's direction to treat the gain as STCG, finding no infirmity in the AO's order accepting the assessee's declared LTCG.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, as there was no objection from the respondent.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. It also held that Section 14A disallowances cannot be imported for the computation of book profit under Section 115JB, following established precedents.

The tribunal held that the appeal filed before the ITAT was not maintainable as the assessee failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the CIT(A) first. The ITAT cannot adjudicate penalty matters directly without the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate the source of the deposits, and an adequate opportunity of hearing was to be granted.

The Tribunal accepted the source of Rs. 16.50 Lacs as it was withdrawn from a loan taken earlier and deposited within a reasonable time. However, for the remaining Rs. 1.50 Lacs, no plausible explanation was provided.

The Tribunal held that the provision for warranty is not an expenditure incurred but a contingent liability, hence not deductible. It also held that interest on advances to subsidiary companies was not allowable as the assessee failed to demonstrate commercial expediency and prior decisions were against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that ESI and PF contributions must be remitted by the statutory due date to be eligible for deduction, following the Supreme Court's decision. For the gratuity issue, the Tribunal found that the disallowance was procedural and did not negate the substantive right to deduction.

The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was barred by limitation. The revision was sought to be applied to issues that were not part of the reassessment proceedings, and for such issues, the limitation period runs from the original assessment order.

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order setting aside the assessment. It directed the AO to conduct necessary inquiries regarding the difference in income offered by the assessee and the amount quantifiable under the percentage completion method, considering the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had considered the issue of trade discount and taken a possible view. The PCIT cannot substitute his own view for that of the AO when the issue has been dealt with and a plausible conclusion was reached.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the property purchase was not satisfactory. The AO was justified in making an addition based on the difference between the consideration paid and the guideline value.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not sustainable as they were based on the uncorroborated statement of a hospital manager who lacked concrete data and on abstract figures. The Tribunal noted that the hospital's patient list included non-billed patients and that the assessee's declared income was substantial.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reason provided by the assessee to be reasonable. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the quantum appeals on merits, these were remanded back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not sustainable as they were based on the uncorroborated statement of a hospital manager who lacked concrete data and on abstract figures. The Tribunal noted that the hospital's patient list included non-billed patients and that the assessee's declared income was substantial.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not sustainable as they were based on the uncorroborated statement of a hospital manager who lacked concrete data and on abstract figures. The Tribunal noted that the hospital's patient list included non-billed patients and that the assessee's declared income was substantial.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not sustainable as they were based on the uncorroborated statement of a hospital manager who lacked concrete data and on abstract figures. The Tribunal noted that the hospital's patient list included non-billed patients and that the assessee's declared income was substantial.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reason provided by the assessee to be reasonable. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the quantum appeals on merits, these were remanded back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claim of declaring the capital gain in Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was partly allowed to facilitate this verification.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not sustainable as they were based on the uncorroborated statement of a hospital manager who lacked concrete data and on abstract figures. The Tribunal noted that the hospital's patient list included non-billed patients and that the assessee's declared income was substantial.