ITAT Chennai Judgments — June 2023

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and, in the interest of justice, decided to grant the assessee one final opportunity. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after allowing the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the legal issue raised by the assessee. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal directed the jurisdictional AO/AO-CPC to allow rectification of the return of income after verification, considering the principle of natural justice. The assessee was directed to provide necessary information.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of late ESI & EPF payments, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order which followed binding precedents. The issue of denial of losses from partnership firms was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of natural justice, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present complete details to substantiate its claim.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with supporting details.

The Tribunal held that since the tax audit report was made available to the Assessing Officer before the completion of assessment proceedings, and the delay was due to reasons like the Covid pandemic and portal maintenance, it constituted a venial technical breach without mala fide intention. Therefore, penalty under Section 271B cannot be levied.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus under Section 68 by providing the lender's confirmation and receiving the loan through banking channels. The onus was then on the revenue to prove the lender's lack of capacity, which they failed to do. For the second appeal, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as they were initiated without any new tangible material, constituting a mere review of the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that since the tax audit report was made available to the Assessing Officer before the completion of assessment proceedings, and the delay was due to reasons like the Covid pandemic and portal maintenance, it constituted a venial technical breach without mala fide intention. Therefore, penalty under Section 271B cannot be levied.

The Tribunal held that since the tax audit report was made available to the Assessing Officer before the completion of assessment proceedings, and the delay was due to reasons like the Covid pandemic and portal maintenance, it constituted a venial technical breach without mala fide intention. Therefore, penalty under Section 271B cannot be levied.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions, finding no fault with the relief granted on on-money payments, agricultural income, NRNR deposits, and unexplained investments. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without any new tangible material and amounted to a review of the concluded assessment, which is impermissible. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that Acropetal Technologies Limited should be excluded as a comparable due to significant irregularities in its financials as found by SEBI, which impacted its operating margins. The Tribunal also ruled that ocean freight charges paid to a Korean company were taxable only in Korea as per the India-Korea DTAA, and thus no TDS disallowance was warranted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions, finding no fault with the relief granted on on-money payments, agricultural income, NRNR deposits, and unexplained investments. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was defective because it did not specify the exact charge for penalty initiation. Following various High Court decisions, the Tribunal quashed the notices.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was defective because it did not specify the exact charge for penalty initiation. Following various High Court decisions, the Tribunal quashed the notices.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus under Section 68 by providing the lender's confirmation and receiving the loan through banking channels. The onus was then on the revenue to prove the lender's lack of capacity, which they failed to do. For the second appeal, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as they were initiated without any new tangible material, constituting a mere review of the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that Acropetal Technologies Limited should be excluded as a comparable due to significant irregularities in its financials as found by SEBI, which impacted its operating margins. The Tribunal also ruled that ocean freight charges paid to a Korean company were taxable only in Korea as per the India-Korea DTAA, and thus no TDS disallowance was warranted.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea to admit additional evidence, including affidavits and invoices for jewellery purchase. The impugned order was set aside, and the additions were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-consideration.

The Tribunal held that a single instance of sales suppression does not justify extrapolation for the entire year without corroborative evidence or recorded statements. The CIT(A)'s apportionment based on gross profit was upheld.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment and penalty proceedings. This was granted on the condition of the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer, subject to payment of costs.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for the assessment year had been restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. Therefore, the penalty appeal was also restored to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate afresh based on the outcome of the fresh quantum assessment.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of the exempt income earned by the assessee. It also directed a re-computation of carry forward and set-off of losses in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that receipts from providing uniforms, books, and transport services are incidental to the main object of education and are commercial in nature. Therefore, the surplus from these activities is taxable.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the tax audit report was due to a reasonable cause beyond the assessee's control and constituted a technical breach without mala fide intention. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and not decided on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was decided ex parte by the CIT(Appeals) without hearing the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal held that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, is applicable as the due date fell on a holiday, making the payment on the next working day valid. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that since the tax audit report was made available to the Assessing Officer before the completion of assessment proceedings, and the delay was due to reasons like the Covid pandemic and portal maintenance, it constituted a venial technical breach without mala fide intention. Therefore, penalty under Section 271B cannot be levied.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the interest disallowance issue and remitted it back to the AO for fresh verification of additional evidence. For the income received in advance issue, the Tribunal also remitted the matter to the AO to consider the arbitration proceedings' final decision.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order did not specify the date of receipt of the cash and that the assessment was completed on the same day a show-cause notice was issued. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal, in view of the assessee's request and no objection from the revenue, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of evidence and decision.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer rightly taxed the on-money receipt as the assessee had admitted to it twice. An affidavit from the buyer filed later was considered an afterthought and not given weight.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide specific details regarding excess depreciation and provision for land development, which were crucial for deciding the issue. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO to decide the issue afresh after considering the details to be filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide specific details regarding excess depreciation and provision for land development, which were crucial for deciding the issue. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO to decide the issue afresh after considering the details to be filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity to explain a cash deposit. The issue on merits was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim without proper verification of bad debts disallowed in earlier years and the nexus with overseas debtors. The issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for necessary verification.

The Tribunal held that since the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and the reopening was initiated beyond four years, the Revenue failed to demonstrate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reopening was deemed bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the revision order was not sustainable in law. It found that the Assessing Officer had made due inquiries and accepted the assessee's claim with due application of mind, and the Revenue failed to demonstrate that the order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the AO's initial miscalculation of tax rates was a mistake apparent on record. The rectification under Section 154 to apply the special rate under Section 115BBE was therefore valid and not a debatable issue.

The Tribunal acknowledged the commercial expediency and minimal percentage of disputed cash purchases. It directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% on the disallowed purchases instead of making a full disallowance.

The Tribunal acknowledged the commercial expediency and minimal percentage of disputed cash purchases. It directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% on the disallowed purchases instead of making a full disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash withdrawals from his bank accounts to explain the demonetized cash deposit. Therefore, the entire amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was considered explained.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee voluntarily filed a revised return within the prescribed time and withdrew the weighted deduction, there was no escapement of income. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was not justified.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and CPC, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is to re-adjudicate the issue after the CBDT decides on the assessee's petition for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B.

The Tribunal noted that Section 44AD was not applicable but a reasonable estimation was required. Considering the assessee's profit rate in subsequent years was around 3-4%, the Tribunal estimated a reasonable profit rate of 4%.

The Tribunal noted the assessee had made repeated attempts to get the gratuity fund approved. It directed the Assessing Officer to inquire into the status of the original approval application and consider the implications of deemed approval if the application was not decided.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was barred from accepting demonetized currency for trading after the government's notification. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.