ITAT Chennai Judgments — October 2023

The Tribunal held that the assessee's objects and activities clearly fall under the 'General Public Utility' category and need to be examined in light of the amended provisions of Section 2(15). The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify the applicability of the principles of mutuality.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal as it was a purely legal issue concerning the validity of the assessment, and the necessary facts were available on record. The Tribunal held that the DRP directions were uploaded to the ITBA portal and through common functionality for NeFAC, Delhi, on 31.01.2022. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's contention that the date of receipt by the AO should be considered later, stating that the upload date of 31.01.2022 should be considered the date of receipt. Consequently, the final assessment order should have been passed on or before 28.02.2022. Since the order was passed on 22.03.2022, it was found to be barred by limitation by 22 days and therefore void ab initio. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment order. As the primary issue of limitation was decided in favour of the assessee, the merits of the case were rendered academic and not adjudicated upon. The appeal of the assessee was allowed solely on the ground of limitation.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment were unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. The assessee was entitled to the benefit of Article 8 of the treaty, and the impugned charges were not taxable in India.

The Tribunal followed the IT Settlement Commission's order in a related case, accepting the assessee's explanation for AY 2016-17 regarding certain purchases. However, for AY 2017-18, the addition was deleted, implying a different conclusion for that year.

The Tribunal followed the IT Settlement Commission's order in a related case, accepting the assessee's explanation for AY 2016-17 regarding certain purchases. However, for AY 2017-18, the addition was deleted, implying a different conclusion for that year.

The Tribunal noted that the issue on merits regarding the composite nature of the contract was already decided against the assessee. However, due to the assessee's failure to provide complete financial details and reconcile income, the matter of computation of profit attribution and duplication of income was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was correctly framed under Section 153C as the search warrant was issued in the name of RPP Infra Projects Ltd., making Sakthi Constructions an 'other person'. However, the CIT(A) did not decide the merits of the additions, so the case was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the Revenue could not demonstrate failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. In the rectification matter, the Tribunal found that the issue was debatable and thus not rectifiable under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of immovable property is completed when the owner's rights are extinguished. Based on the sale deed and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal found that the owner's rights were extinguished on the date of registration of the sale deed (July 19, 2007), not on the date of the agreement to sell. Therefore, the capital gains tax liability falls in AY 2008-09.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the issues concerning investment in immovable property and unproved loans/liabilities, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, providing the assessee with an opportunity to explain their case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings, finding that the Revenue did not satisfy the conditions for reopening beyond four years. In the rectification case, the Tribunal agreed that the issue was debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record, thus the Section 154 action was invalid.

The Tribunal found that the debit balances were for short periods and explained by the assessee as part of normal business transactions or inadvertent errors. The payment of Rs. 12,50,000/- was also explained as a payment to the assessee's mother as per her instructions. These claims required verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the issues concerning investment in immovable property and unproved loans/liabilities, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, providing the assessee with an opportunity to explain their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the issues concerning investment in immovable property and unproved loans/liabilities, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, providing the assessee with an opportunity to explain their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the issues concerning investment in immovable property and unproved loans/liabilities, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, providing the assessee with an opportunity to explain their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the issues concerning investment in immovable property and unproved loans/liabilities, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, providing the assessee with an opportunity to explain their case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following previous ITAT rulings in the assessee's own case and similar cases. The expenditure on copyrights was held to be revenue in nature.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to verify if the assessee paid taxes in subsequent years on the written-off credits, as invoking section 41(1) would be inappropriate if taxes were paid.

The Tribunal held that since exemption under Section 11 was denied due to the commercial nature of activities, donations paid in the course of carrying on trade or commerce should be allowed as a deduction. However, expenses for maintaining a property exclusively for family members were disallowed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide evidence before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for one more opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the issue on merits regarding the composite nature of the contract was already decided against the assessee. However, due to the assessee's failure to provide complete financial details and reconcile income, the matter of computation of profit attribution and duplication of income was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the issue on merits regarding the composite nature of the contract was already decided against the assessee. However, due to the assessee's failure to provide complete financial details and reconcile income, the matter of computation of profit attribution and duplication of income was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) did not properly examine the violation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act and that the AO had indeed examined the exemption claim. The Tribunal also noted the Supreme Court's clarification on the applicability of its judgment, stating that revision solely based on that judgment without further deliberation was not tenable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings, finding that the Revenue did not satisfy the conditions for reopening beyond four years. In the rectification case, the Tribunal agreed that the issue was debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record, thus the Section 154 action was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record the necessary satisfaction, as required by Section 14A(2), before invoking Rule 8D for disallowance. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the payment to each party was below the threshold limit of Rs. 1.80 Lacs, the assessee was not liable for TDS under Section 194-I. Consequently, the assessee could not be treated as being in default under Section 201(1) / 201(1A).

The Tribunal held that since exemption under Section 11 was denied due to the commercial nature of activities, donations paid in the course of carrying on trade or commerce should be allowed as a deduction. However, expenses for maintaining a property exclusively for family members were disallowed.

The Tribunal held that since exemption under Section 11 was denied due to the commercial nature of activities, donations paid in the course of carrying on trade or commerce should be allowed as a deduction. However, expenses for maintaining a property exclusively for family members were disallowed.

The Tribunal held that since exemption under Section 11 was denied due to the commercial nature of activities, donations paid in the course of carrying on trade or commerce should be allowed as a deduction. However, expenses for maintaining a property exclusively for family members were disallowed.

The Tribunal held that since exemption under Section 11 was denied due to the commercial nature of activities, donations paid in the course of carrying on trade or commerce should be allowed as a deduction. However, expenses for maintaining a property exclusively for family members were disallowed.

The Tribunal held that since exemption under Section 11 was denied due to the commercial nature of activities, donations paid in the course of carrying on trade or commerce should be allowed as a deduction. However, expenses for maintaining a property exclusively for family members were disallowed.

The Tribunal held that since exemption under Section 11 was denied due to the commercial nature of activities, donations paid in the course of carrying on trade or commerce should be allowed as a deduction. However, expenses for maintaining a property exclusively for family members were disallowed.

The Tribunal held that since exemption under Section 11 was denied due to the commercial nature of activities, donations paid in the course of carrying on trade or commerce should be allowed as a deduction. However, expenses for maintaining a property exclusively for family members were disallowed.

The Tribunal held that since exemption under Section 11 was denied due to the commercial nature of activities, donations paid in the course of carrying on trade or commerce should be allowed as a deduction. However, expenses for maintaining a property exclusively for family members were disallowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following previous ITAT rulings in the assessee's own case and similar cases. The expenditure on copyrights was held to be revenue in nature.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following previous ITAT rulings in the assessee's own case and similar cases. The expenditure on copyrights was held to be revenue in nature.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide evidence before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for one more opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings, finding that the Revenue did not satisfy the conditions for reopening beyond four years. In the rectification case, the Tribunal agreed that the issue was debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record, thus the Section 154 action was invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings, finding that the Revenue did not satisfy the conditions for reopening beyond four years. In the rectification case, the Tribunal agreed that the issue was debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record, thus the Section 154 action was invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings, finding that the Revenue did not satisfy the conditions for reopening beyond four years. In the rectification case, the Tribunal agreed that the issue was debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record, thus the Section 154 action was invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings, finding that the Revenue did not satisfy the conditions for reopening beyond four years. In the rectification case, the Tribunal agreed that the issue was debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record, thus the Section 154 action was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the transaction was between shareholders and did not result in a remission of liability for the assessee company. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition, and subsequent arbitration and court orders restored the status quo, confirming that the liability was not extinguished.

The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Observing that the CIT(A) might have sent notices to an old email ID, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to ensure natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Observing that the CIT(A) might have sent notices to an old email ID, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to ensure natural justice.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals. The Tribunal found that the reasons provided for the delay were not sufficient to condone such a significant period of over seven years.

The Tribunal held that belated payment of employee's contribution to PF & ESI cannot be allowed as a deduction, even if remitted before the due date for filing the return of income. This decision follows the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeals on merits after dismissing them on technical grounds. Since the assessment order was ex-parte and the appeals were dismissed unheard, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeals on merits after dismissing them on technical grounds. Since the assessment order was ex-parte and the appeals were dismissed unheard, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, demonstrating gross negligence.