ITAT Chennai Judgments — March 2023

The Tribunal held that the inordinate delay in filing the appeals could not be condoned as the assessee failed to demonstrate any reasonable or sufficient cause. The Tribunal emphasized the need for finality in assessment proceedings and that law assists the vigilant.

The Tribunal noted that a petition for condonation of delay was filed before the CIT. The Tribunal directed the CIT to refer this petition to the CBDT for consideration and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issues on merits if the delay is condoned by the CBDT.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to decide the issue afresh after considering the CBDT's decision on the assessee's condonation petition.

The Tribunal held that the delay was inordinate and not supported by sufficient or reasonable cause. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized the need for finality in proceedings and that the law assists the vigilant.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's business was not ready to commence operations. Therefore, preliminary expenses could not be allowed as a deduction under Section 35D.

The Tribunal upheld the legal grounds for the search assessment, finding that incriminating material in the form of loose sheets and electronic data was unearthed. However, several issues on merits were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal against the quantum addition was remitted back to the CIT(A). Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) should also be decided by the CIT(A) after the quantum addition is adjudicated.

The Tribunal upheld the legal grounds for the search assessment, finding that incriminating material in the form of loose sheets and electronic data was unearthed. However, several issues on merits were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the legal grounds for the search assessment, finding that incriminating material in the form of loose sheets and electronic data was unearthed. However, several issues on merits were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding retained advances, finding it already accounted for in project profits. For the assessee's appeals, the estimated net profit on land sales was reduced from 30% to 15%.

The Tribunal held that the inordinate delay in filing the appeals could not be condoned as the assessee failed to demonstrate any reasonable or sufficient cause. The Tribunal emphasized the need for finality in assessment proceedings and that the law assists the vigilant.

The Tribunal held that the delay was inordinate and not supported by sufficient or reasonable cause. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized the need for finality in proceedings and that the law assists the vigilant.

The Tribunal held that the delay was inordinate and not supported by sufficient or reasonable cause. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized the need for finality in proceedings and that the law assists the vigilant.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding retained advances, finding it already accounted for in project profits. For the assessee's appeals, the estimated net profit on land sales was reduced from 30% to 15%.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to avail opportunities, the CIT(A) is duty-bound to pass a speaking order on merits. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF & ESI is justified, as the payments were made beyond the due dates prescribed by the respective statutes. The Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Checkmate Services P.Ltd Vs. CIT was followed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was justified as the contributions were deposited belatedly. Specific provisions (Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B) prevail over general provisions (Section 37(1)).

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was justified as the contributions were deposited belatedly. Specific provisions (Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B) prevail over general provisions (Section 37(1)).

The Tribunal held that the observations from the previous appellate order did not constitute a 'finding' or 'direction' as required by Section 150(1) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred.

The Tribunal held that appeals against recovery letters are not maintainable as they are not appealable orders. Furthermore, the appeals were dismissed for inordinate delay without sufficient cause and for challenging old orders.

The Tribunal held that appeals against recovery letters are not maintainable as they are not appealable orders. Furthermore, the assessee failed to explain the inordinate delay in challenging old orders, and Section 234E levy is statutory.

The Tribunal held that appeals against recovery letters are not maintainable as they are not appealable orders. Furthermore, the assessee failed to explain the inordinate delay in challenging old orders, and Section 234E levy is statutory.

The Tribunal held that appeals against recovery letters are not maintainable as they are not appealable orders. Furthermore, the assessee failed to explain the inordinate delay in challenging old orders, and Section 234E levy is statutory.

The Tribunal held that appeals against recovery letters are not maintainable as they are not appealable orders. Furthermore, the assessee failed to explain the inordinate delay in challenging old orders, and Section 234E levy is statutory.

The Tribunal held that appeals against recovery letters are not maintainable as they are not appealable orders. Furthermore, the assessee failed to explain the inordinate delay in challenging old orders, and Section 234E levy is statutory.

The Tribunal held that appeals against recovery letters are not maintainable as they are not appealable orders. Furthermore, the assessee failed to explain the inordinate delay in challenging old orders, and Section 234E levy is statutory.

The Tribunal held that appeals against recovery letters are not maintainable as they are not appealable orders. Furthermore, the assessee failed to explain the inordinate delay in challenging old orders, and Section 234E levy is statutory.

The Tribunal held that appeals against recovery letters are not maintainable as they are not appealable orders. Furthermore, the assessee failed to explain the inordinate delay in challenging old orders. The levy of fees under Section 234E was also confirmed as a statutory and mandatory levy.

The Tribunal held that the observations from the previous appellate order did not constitute a 'finding' or 'direction' as required by Section 150(1) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred.

The Tribunal held that appeals against recovery letters are not maintainable as they are not appealable orders. Furthermore, the assessee failed to explain the inordinate delay in challenging old orders.

The Tribunal held that the corpus donations could not be treated as income. It was sufficient that the donations were classified separately in the balance sheet and invested in prescribed modes like FDRs, even without an immediate one-to-one correlation.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient time to file objections and also contended that the remand report was not provided by the CIT(A). Considering these points, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the financial and operational difficulties faced by the assessee and its parent company. For some appeals, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and restored the matters to the AO for de-novo assessment, while for others, it restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that if the gratuity provision amount was not debited to the Profit & Loss account and not claimed as a deduction, it could not be disallowed. Regarding DDT, the tribunal directed the AO to verify the payment and grant credit, despite the technical error in mentioning the assessment year, provided the assessee substantiates the payment pertains to the impugned AY.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the financial and operational difficulties faced by the assessee and its parent company. For some appeals, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and restored the matters to the AO for de-novo assessment, while for others, it restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal concerning the disallowance of chit business expenses for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence. However, for AY 2018-19, the issue of unexplained cash was remanded to the AO for further examination of loan recoveries.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal concerning the disallowance of chit business expenses for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence. However, for AY 2018-19, the issue of unexplained cash was remanded to the AO for further examination of loan recoveries.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the financial and operational difficulties faced by the assessee and its parent company. For some appeals, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and restored the matters to the AO for de-novo assessment, while for others, it restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the conditions of Section 54F by purchasing the property within the stipulated period, even if the deposit into the Capital Gains Account Scheme was not made. The provisions of Section 54F are beneficial and should be considered liberally.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was incorrect. The AO had conducted a best judgment assessment based on available information and public domain data, and the PCIT's disagreement with the AO's estimation, without demonstrating it was unsustainable in law, did not warrant revision.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. This was based on the principle that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the amendment regarding additional depreciation has retrospective application, making the PCIT's view incorrect. For the unproved land addition, the Tribunal directed a fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that depreciation and other expenses claimed by the assessee were rightly disallowed by the lower authorities as there was no proof of the business being set up and operational, nor any evidence of plant and machinery being ready for use or test runs.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid as the original assessment was processed under Section 143(1) and not subjected to scrutiny. The additions made under Section 2(22)(e) and Section 68 were also upheld due to lack of satisfactory explanation and evidence from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid as the original assessment was processed under Section 143(1) and not subjected to scrutiny. The additions made under Section 2(22)(e) and Section 68 were also upheld due to lack of satisfactory explanation and evidence from the assessee.

The Tribunal followed a previous decision regarding similar sister concerns and held that the interest component should be allowed as a deduction. However, due to the issue of TDS non-deduction, the matter was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the chit loss is not allowable as a business loss because the investment in the chit has no nexus with the assessee's civil construction business. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's judgment on this matter.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of the cash deposits by showing prior withdrawals for land purchase that could not materialize due to litigation. The addition made under Section 68 was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the financial and operational difficulties faced by the assessee and its parent company. For some appeals, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and restored the matters to the AO for de-novo assessment, while for others, it restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.