ITAT Chennai Judgments — November 2022

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54 for deemed investment in the proposed flat, similar to other co-owners. The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the sale consideration of Rs. 182.76 Lacs and grant the additional deduction under Section 54.

The Tribunal found that the AO misunderstood the assessee's explanation regarding her own capital being shown as unsecured loan. For the investment in her husband, the AO did not verify the assessee's claim of debiting it to her drawings account. Therefore, both issues were set aside and remanded to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on a retracted statement and that the assessee had provided evidence of payments made through banking channels. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, subject to payment of costs. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for re-consideration, noting that the assessment order was ex-parte.

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on a retracted statement and that the assessee had provided evidence of payments made through banking channels. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition.

The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal, granting further relief by allowing an additional 600 grams of jewellery as explained, considering the provisions of CBDT Circular No. 1916 and customary practices. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute the addition.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond 4 years on the same material without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts constitutes a 'change of opinion' and is impermissible. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a credit co-operative society on deposits with another co-operative bank, when such deposits are made as part of its business operations and statutory requirements, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB could be levied, but the Assessing Officer erred in levying it at 30% under clause (c). The Tribunal directed the penalty to be restricted to 10% under clause (a) of Section 271AAB.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the marketing partner, including pre-sale and after-sale support, required technical expertise and thus qualified as FTS under Section 9(1)(vii). Consequently, the assessee was obligated to deduct TDS, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was upheld.