ITAT Chennai Judgments — January 2024

The Tribunal found that the assessee's error was merely technical. It set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(Exemption) to consider a subsequent correct application or allow the assessee to file a fresh one.

The Tribunal held that interest income and profit on sale of fixed assets should not be considered as part of turnover. Excluding these items, the assessee's turnover was found to be below Rs. 50 crores.

The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of notices being served on the assessee's registered email ID, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(Exemption)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the directors had included the salaries in their returns and paid taxes, and the assessee had obtained a certified Form 26A, the disallowance was not justified. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO and was also asked to pay a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

The Tribunal held that VAT expenses are not covered under Section 40(a)(iib) as they are taxes and not fees or charges. This decision was based on a Supreme Court judgment which clarified the distinction between tax and fee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made by the AO under Section 68. The Tribunal noted that the AO's verification through DCIT, Kolhapur, substantiated the assessee's claim to a large extent. While the AO found that the assessee failed to provide PAN, address, and landholding details for all farmers, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided a list of farmers and amounts received. The Tribunal also noted that in AY 2017-18, sample verification of 48 farmers by the AO resulted in 21 farmers providing confirmations that matched the assessee's details. The Tribunal found the AO's distinction between farmers who appeared and those who did not to be artificial, stating that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by furnishing details, and it was the AO's duty to controvert them with positive material, which was lacking. Furthermore, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the addition made in AY 2016-17 was a double addition, as the amount was also considered in AY 2017-18. The Tribunal concluded that the cash deposited was supported by the cash balance available in the assessee's books, and therefore, the addition under Section 68 for AY 2016-17 and Section 69A for AY 2017-18 had no basis. The appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made by the AO under Section 68. The Tribunal noted that the AO's verification through DCIT, Kolhapur, substantiated the assessee's claim to a large extent. While the AO found that the assessee failed to provide PAN, address, and landholding details for all farmers, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided a list of farmers and amounts received. The Tribunal also noted that in AY 2017-18, sample verification of 48 farmers by the AO resulted in 21 farmers providing confirmations that matched the assessee's details. The Tribunal found the AO's distinction between farmers who appeared and those who did not to be artificial, stating that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by furnishing details, and it was the AO's duty to controvert them with positive material, which was lacking. Furthermore, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the addition made in AY 2016-17 was a double addition, as the amount was also considered in AY 2017-18. The Tribunal concluded that the cash deposited was supported by the cash balance available in the assessee's books, and therefore, the addition under Section 68 for AY 2016-17 and Section 69A for AY 2017-18 had no basis. The appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, emphasizing that substantial justice should be advanced over technicalities. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was remitted to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed due to the significant delay and the lack of a condonation petition. Furthermore, the issue was squarely covered against the assessee by a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for non-compliance was inconsistent and unsubstantiated. It also clarified that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) can be imposed for each notice, justifying the penalty levied for multiple notices.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation at all stages but, considering it's a cooperative society operating in rural areas, decided to grant one more opportunity. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and without basis, dismissing the appeal for default. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for non-compliance was inconsistent and unsubstantiated. It also clarified that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) can be imposed for each notice of non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for non-compliance was inconsistent and unsubstantiated. For other appeals, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed details before the AO or CIT(A) despite opportunities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the return of income, as the appropriate authority had allowed the condonation under Section 119(2)(b). Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 80P.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee an opportunity to file their accounts and financial statements.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and lacked proper adjudication, hence it was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for non-compliance was inconsistent and unsubstantiated. It further clarified that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) can be imposed for each notice of non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses was based on an estimated basis and the genuineness of the expenditure was not doubted. Therefore, it was not a fit case for levying penalty as there was no concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for non-compliance was inconsistent and unsubstantiated. For other appeals, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed details before the AO or CIT(A) despite opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for non-compliance was inconsistent and unsubstantiated. For other appeals, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed details before the AO or CIT(A) despite opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for non-compliance was inconsistent and unsubstantiated. It also clarified that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) can be imposed for each notice of non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for non-compliance was inconsistent and unsubstantiated. It also clarified that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) can be imposed for each notice of non-compliance.

The Tribunal found the appeal to be defective due to a significant delay in filing and incorrect particulars in the appeal form. The appeal was dismissed as unadmitted for these defects.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was incorrect in not granting registration from AY 2021-22. The assessee is entitled to registration from AY 2021-22 onwards.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in appending two zeros to cash transactions found in the seized excel sheets without corroborative evidence. It was also noted that bank transactions in the excel sheets matched the bank statements, indicating the amounts were actual.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in appending two zeros to the cash transactions without corroborative evidence. It found that bank transactions in the seized sheets matched bank statements without such additions, making the AO's assumption for cash transactions untenable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind to the available material and made the addition without proper verification. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition after considering the relevant facts and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in appending two zeros to cash transactions found in the seized excel sheets without corroborative evidence. It was also noted that bank transactions in the excel sheets matched the bank statements, indicating the amounts were actual.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in appending two zeros to the cash transactions without corroborative evidence. It found that bank transactions in the seized sheets matched bank statements without such additions, making the AO's assumption for cash transactions untenable.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in appending two zeros to the cash transactions without corroborative evidence. It found that bank transactions in the seized sheets matched bank statements without such additions, making the AO's assumption for cash transactions untenable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not considering the assessee's adjournment request on medical grounds. The appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the full TDS credit as reflected in Form 26AS, as the income covered by credit notes never accrued to the assessee. Section 155(14) was deemed inapplicable as the income was not undisclosed.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s observation about non-filing of submissions was contrary to the record. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order without considering the written submissions filed by the assessee on the same day, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal on technical grounds without deciding the issue on merits. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration on merits, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were bonafide and genuine, especially considering the assessee is a senior citizen and the Covid period. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay to advance substantial justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal on technical grounds without adjudicating the issue on merits. Therefore, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present their case.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without considering the assessee's detailed submissions and evidence. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was dismissed on wrong facts and therefore, it should be reconsidered by the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that there was an inadvertent error in the email address used by the CIT(Exemption), meaning proper service of notice was not effected. Consequently, the application needs to be restored to the CIT(Exemption) for disposal.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technical grounds without considering the merits of the case. It is a settled principle that appeals should be disposed of on merits even if dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the grounds related to the validity of the assessment order and penalty proceedings were not adjudicated on merits as the appeal was partly allowed. Regarding TP grounds, the Tribunal directed the inclusion of M/s. Informed Technologies India Ltd. based on a Bangalore Tribunal decision. Jindal Intellicom Ltd. was restored to the TPO for fresh adjudication due to lack of segmental data. Sundaram Business Services Ltd. was rightly excluded due to losses and high marketing expenditure. Crystal Voxx Ltd. was also rightly excluded as it did not pass the TPO's filters. The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-compute ALP considering these adjudications, partly allowing the corresponding grounds. For foreign currency expenses, accepting additional evidence, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Regarding advances written off, the Tribunal held that forfeiture of rental advances given in the regular course of business is an allowable business deduction, directing the AO to allow it. However, the reversal of ineligible CENVAT credit was rightly disallowed. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was non-cooperative, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits. Therefore, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the seized document was a 'dumb document' lacking corroborative evidence to prove the alleged on-money receipt. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer based on this document was erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order dated 27.06.2022 had attained finality as the Revenue did not file an appeal against it. Therefore, the CIT(A) could not revive the earlier order under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that forex losses/gains should be excluded from operating margin computation as per Safe Harbor Rules, overturning the AO/CIT(A)'s view. However, creditor write-offs were deemed non-operating unless directly related to operating activities and details were provided. The issue of set-off of brought forward losses was remanded to the AO for verification.