ITAT Chennai Judgments — March 2023

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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(c) was not sustainable as the difference between the guideline value and consideration was within the tolerance band, making the amendment to Section 50C retrospective. However, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide sufficient evidence to justify non-deduction of TDS.

For AY 2007-08, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation, relying on jurisdictional High Court rulings. For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the facts regarding the payment of purchase tax and restored the matter to the AO 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 condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merit. The assessee was directed to file appeals in electronic format.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merit. The assessee was directed to file appeals in electronic format.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeals on merit. The assessee was directed to file appeals in electronic format.

For AY 2007-08, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation, relying on jurisdictional High Court rulings. For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the facts regarding the payment of purchase tax and restored the matter to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted the delay in filing the appeal and the absence of a condonation petition. The assessee then requested to withdraw the appeal, which was not objected to by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted an enquiry and concluded the capital gains were genuine. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's order was based on information that did not necessarily link to the assessee's specific transactions and that the AO's assessment was not erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted an enquiry, even if considered inadequate by the PCIT. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal noted that while the AO's assessment order dated 31.10.2019 mentioned allowing set off of brought forward business loss, the computation sheet only reflected income from other sources as per the revised return, leading to the determination of taxes payable. Furthermore, an application under Section 154 of the Act concerning this very issue was pending disposal. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the issue required re-examination by the AO. The Tribunal set aside the issue concerning the set off of brought forward business loss to the file of the AO, directing the AO to re-examine it in light of the details filed by the assessee and allow the set off of brought forward business loss against the current year's income. The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted an enquiry, even if it could be considered inadequate. The Tribunal found that the AO had verified the capital gains with available evidence and concluded they were genuine, not bogus.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if Rs. 283.48 Lacs was already accounted for and delete the addition if confirmed. For the remaining Rs. 604.93 Lacs related to NPA interest, the AO was directed to re-adjudicate after considering factual matrix and providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause for the mistake. The issue of profit attribution for offshore supply was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal reviewed the case records and agreed with the Revenue's submission. The Assessment Year in the captioned order was corrected to 'Assessment Year 2015-16'.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry and that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT's action of setting aside the assessment for further verification was deemed impermissible under Section 263.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee's claim of source was not fully substantiated, the family's habit of keeping cash and earlier withdrawals suggested some funds might have been available. Therefore, a portion of the addition was sustained.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee's claim was not fully substantiated, the Revenue also failed to prove the cash was used for other purposes. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was reduced.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was based on non-prosecution and not on merits. While the assessee was provided opportunities, they were not availed. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was based on non-prosecution and not on merits. While the assessee was provided opportunities, they were not availed. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Principal CIT rightly directed the AO to reconsider the additional sale consideration and monthly compensation as taxable income. The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as it was based on unverified third-party data without corroborative evidence. The assessee's declared income was also found to be higher than the quantified amount.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as it was based on unverified third-party data without corroborative evidence. The assessee's declared income was also found to be higher than the quantified amount.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as it was based on unverified third-party data without corroborative evidence. The assessee's declared income was also found to be higher than the quantified amount.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as it was based on unverified third-party data without corroborative evidence. The assessee's declared income was also found to be higher than the quantified amount.

The Tribunal, following its own precedent in similar cases, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was to allow for a fresh examination of the nature of services and the applicability of TDS provisions.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2014, which limits disallowance to 30%, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question. The alternate plea based on the Finance Act, 2019 amendment was also rejected.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as it was based on unverified third-party data without corroborative evidence. The assessee's declared income was also found to be higher than the quantified amount.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim regarding operating a petrol pump and accepting Specified Bank Notes as per government notifications was a new fact not presented to the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal found that the authorities below did not properly consider the withdrawals made by the assessee and his parents. While acknowledging that some of the withdrawn amount might have been re-deposited, the Tribunal estimated the unexplained cash deposit to be Rs. 5.00 lakhs and deleted the balance.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as it was based on unverified third-party data without corroborative evidence. The assessee's declared income was also found to be higher than the quantified amount.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted specific inquiries regarding the share premium and fair market value, and had made a conscious decision not to make any addition. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and the revision order under Section 263 was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove business exigency or that the payments fell under any exceptions prescribed in Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the consideration received for the right to use a trademark, even if termed a license, constitutes a transfer of rights in an intangible asset. Therefore, capital gains tax is leviable on such receipts.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 5,05,756/- for lack of supporting documents. It also confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 38,00,098/- for non-deduction of TDS, stating that payments to C&F agents are subject to TDS under Section 194C.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA must be computed independently for each eligible undertaking, without setting off losses from one unit against profits of another. The AO and CIT(A) erred in their computation.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had followed the correct procedure, including issuing notices to the legal heir after the assessee's death. The Tribunal also found that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the issues of long-term capital gains and advance payments, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal affirmed the revision order of the PCIT, directing the Assessing Officer to independently examine the violation of Section 40A(3) regarding cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2014, which limits disallowance to 30%, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question. The alternate plea based on the Finance Act, 2019 amendment was also rejected.

The Tribunal, following its own precedent in similar cases, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was to allow for a fresh examination of the nature of services and the applicability of TDS provisions.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, restricting the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) for marriage expenses and agricultural land purchase. For gold jewellery, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reason provided by the assessee for the delay in submitting the audit report was not a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was sustained.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, restricting the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) for marriage expenses and agricultural land purchase. For gold jewellery, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, restricting the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) for marriage expenses and agricultural land purchase. For gold jewellery, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim was covered by the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It directed the Assessing Officer to allow the expenditure claim to the extent the assessee could produce evidence that the payees had included the receipts in their income and paid taxes.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition based on the fact that the Assessing Officer accepted the same cash balance in the immediately succeeding assessment year. However, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order cryptic and without sufficient reasoning regarding the generation of cash. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to explain the source of the cash balance and that the demonetization argument was not applicable to the assessment year under consideration. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that to claim deduction under Section 80P, an audit report is necessary. Since the assessee failed to file it, the deduction was rightly denied. However, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to file the audit report.

The Tribunal found contradictions in the Assessing Officer's findings and noted that other interest claims were not adequately discussed. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to furnish complete details.