ITAT Chennai Judgments — June 2023

For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts and upholding the reopening being barred by limitation. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the reopening within four years was valid and remanding the matter for adjudication on other grounds.

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 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 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 an immovable property cannot be transferred without a proper conveyance deed. Since no such deed was executed, no capital gain could arise to the assessee.

For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts and upholding the reopening being barred by limitation. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the reopening within four years was valid and remanding the matter for adjudication on other grounds.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for verification of the complete statement of ICICI Securities. If the statement shows credit was allowed, the addition will be deleted; otherwise, it will be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the DRP's order was cryptic and lacked specific adjudication on the assessee's objections regarding the selection of comparable entities. The Tribunal observed that the DRP's reasoning was repetitive and did not demonstrate a specific application of mind to the assessee's detailed submissions. While the DRP correctly noted that comparability must be assessed year-on-year, it failed to provide a specific analysis for each comparable entity raised by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the issue of Transfer Pricing adjustment back to the file of the TPO for fresh adjudication. The TPO was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. All issues were kept open for fresh consideration. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether payments were made by cash or cheque requires verification by the Assessing Officer. For unadjudicated issues regarding closing stock and agricultural income, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether payments were made by cash or cheque requires verification by the Assessing Officer. For unadjudicated issues regarding closing stock and agricultural income, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the amount received was for services rendered in arranging the deal, not for future investment. Nataraj Ganesh's claim that it was for arranging the deal was accepted as he was the payer and his Assessing Officer had allowed it as an expense.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether payments were made by cash or cheque requires verification by the Assessing Officer. For unadjudicated issues regarding closing stock and agricultural income, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the payments made were purely reimbursement of expenses and did not contain any income component chargeable to tax in India. Therefore, the obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195 did not arise.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in directing the AO to verify the applicability of Rule 6DD(e) for payments to the milk cooperative. For the disallowance on cash expenses, the Tribunal reduced the percentage of disallowance to 4% for AY 2008-09 and AY 2013-14.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in adopting the sale consideration under Section 50C without the DVO's report. Consequently, the matter was set aside to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for re-adjudication of the capital gains computation, indexed cost of acquisition, and Section 54F deduction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of proving the source for the property purchase. The AO erred in making additions under Section 69 solely because the partnership firms did not file returns, when sufficient evidence of loan availability and drawings was provided.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly observed the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries regarding the ownership of the property sold and the source of funds, especially given contradictory submissions by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether payments were made by cash or cheque requires verification by the Assessing Officer. For unadjudicated issues regarding closing stock and agricultural income, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim that the entire excess stock was from bought notes was not acceptable, some relief was warranted. The Tribunal enhanced the relief granted by the CIT(A) from 25% to 50% of the excess stock.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in directing the AO to verify the applicability of Rule 6DD(e) for payments to the milk cooperative. For the disallowance on cash expenses, the Tribunal reduced the percentage of disallowance to 4% for AY 2008-09 and AY 2013-14.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in directing the AO to verify the applicability of Rule 6DD(e) for payments to the milk cooperative. For the disallowance on cash expenses, the Tribunal reduced the percentage of disallowance to 4% for AY 2008-09 and AY 2013-14.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in directing the AO to verify the applicability of Rule 6DD(e) for payments to the milk cooperative. For the disallowance on cash expenses, the Tribunal reduced the percentage of disallowance to 4% for AY 2008-09 and AY 2013-14.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in directing the AO to verify the applicability of Rule 6DD(e) for payments to the milk cooperative. For the disallowance on cash expenses, the Tribunal reduced the percentage of disallowance to 4% for AY 2008-09 and AY 2013-14.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in directing the AO to verify the applicability of Rule 6DD(e) for payments to the milk cooperative. For the disallowance on cash expenses, the Tribunal reduced the percentage of disallowance to 4% for AY 2008-09 and AY 2013-14.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in adopting the sale consideration under Section 50C without the DVO's report. Consequently, the matter was set aside to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for re-adjudication of the capital gains computation, indexed cost of acquisition, and Section 54F deduction.

The Tribunal held that the department should have waited for the decision of the CBDT on the condonation petition filed by the assessee for the delay in filing the return. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to await the CBDT's decision.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the addition towards interest income to the total income and book profit, amounting to Rs.10,63,271/-, needed to be re-examined by the AO. The Tribunal noted a contradiction between the AO's finding that the assessee could not reconcile the difference between Form 26AS and its books, and the assessee's claim of having filed a reconciliation statement. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the file of the AO for further verification and re-examination in accordance with law. Regarding the denial of set-off of brought forward losses, including long-term capital loss of Rs.47,04,923/-, the Tribunal found it to be a factual issue requiring verification. Considering the assessee's request for another opportunity to explain its case before the AO, the issue was set aside to the file of the AO for re-examination in light of available materials and decision in accordance with law. The Tribunal did not provide specific findings on the other grounds raised by the assessee, implying they were either not pressed or implicitly decided in favor of the assessee through the remand, or the appeal was partly allowed. The operative direction was to remand the issues concerning interest income and set-off of brought forward losses to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal after the revenue representative expressed no objection.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were genuine as they originated from the sale proceeds of a residential property and were withdrawn for stated purposes. The Department did not establish any other source of income for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the certificates issued by the Village Administrative Officer clearly established the extent of agricultural land, crops grown, and income earned. Therefore, the claim for agricultural income was genuine.

The Tribunal held that the certificates issued by the Village Administrative Officer clearly established the extent of agricultural land, crops grown, and income earned. Therefore, the claim for agricultural income was genuine.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's application of the CUP method for a small percentage of transactions while accepting TNMM for the substantial majority was not justified. The Tribunal found that the initial order in the first round of appeal (dated 21.12.2012) was an open remand, not a final decision on the most appropriate method. This was supported by observations from the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the assessee's appeal (TCA No.799 of 2018 for AY 2011-12), which noted a misreading of the previous Tribunal order and the resulting multiplicity of litigation. The Tribunal also noted that the order for AY 2011-12, relied upon by the DRP, had been reversed by the Hon'ble High Court and subsequently decided in the assessee's favor by the Tribunal. Therefore, the assessee's TNMM method was accepted. The impugned adjustments made by the revenue in both years were deleted. The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the certificates issued by the Village Administrative Officer clearly established the extent of agricultural land, crops grown, and income earned. Therefore, the claim for agricultural income was genuine.

The Tribunal held that the delay in possession by the developer should not vitiate the assessee's claim for exemption. The assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54F for all flats acquired under the agreement.

The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision in the assessee's own case, set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remanded back to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for redetermining the Arm's Length Price (ALP).

The Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision in the assessee's own case, set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remanded to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to redetermine the arm's length price (ALP) afresh.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's application of the CUP method for a small percentage of transactions while accepting TNMM for the substantial majority was not justified. The Tribunal found that the initial order in the first round of appeal (dated 21.12.2012) was an open remand, not a final decision on the most appropriate method. This was supported by observations from the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the assessee's appeal (TCA No.799 of 2018 for AY 2011-12), which noted a misreading of the previous Tribunal order and the resulting multiplicity of litigation. The Tribunal also noted that the order for AY 2011-12, relied upon by the DRP, had been reversed by the Hon'ble High Court and subsequently decided in the assessee's favor by the Tribunal. Therefore, the assessee's TNMM method was accepted. The impugned adjustments made by the revenue in both years were deleted. The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal accepted the rental income and a portion of the jewel loan as explained. For the remaining unexplained cash credits, the Tribunal estimated a part of the addition and deleted the rest.

The Tribunal held that the certificates issued by the Village Administrative Officer clearly established the extent of agricultural land, crops grown, and income earned. Therefore, the claim for agricultural income was genuine.

The Tribunal held that government approvals and permissions for the desalination plant fulfilled the requirement of an agreement under Section 80IA(4). It also confirmed that captive consumption does not disqualify the claim and that MAT credit includes surcharge and education cess, following High Court precedents.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate her claims and that the documents supported the revenue's case that the assessee was the absolute owner. However, considering the principle of natural justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding TDS returns, finding substance in the revenue's argument that the assessee failed to follow CBDT circulars in spirit. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding TDS returns and found substance in the revenue's argument that the assessee failed to follow CBDT circulars in spirit. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that for banking companies, shares and securities held are stock-in-trade, and income from them is business income. Therefore, Section 14A is not attracted to such income.

The Tribunal held that for banking companies, shares and securities held are stock-in-trade, and income from them is business income. Therefore, Section 14A is not attracted to such income.

The Tribunal held that for banking companies, shares and securities held are stock-in-trade, and income from them is business income. Therefore, Section 14A is not attracted to such income.

The Tribunal held that for banking companies, shares and securities held are stock-in-trade, and income from them is business income. Therefore, Section 14A is not attracted to such income.

The Tribunal held that for banking companies, shares and securities held are stock-in-trade, and income from them is business income. Therefore, Section 14A is not attracted to such income.