ITAT Chennai Judgments — March 2024

The Tribunal reviewed the assessment order and CIT(A)'s order and found that the date of filing the return of income was indeed mentioned as 27.09.2013 in those records. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded there was no mistake apparent on record to rectify.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the cash deposits as required by Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The provided details of depositors were insufficient to establish the source of the funds.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 13(1)(c) regarding rental income. For depreciation, it was allowed for AYs 2012-15 but disallowed for AYs 2015-19 due to amendment in Section 11(6).

The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding jurisdiction as the assessee could not point out any defect. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of amortised premium, respectfully following the co-ordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the timeline for filing the application under Section 80G(5)(iii) should be treated as directory, not mandatory, considering the transitional nature of amendments and genuine hardship. The CIT(Exemption) should have decided the application on merits.

The Tribunal, to meet the ends of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity to furnish complete details before the Assessing Officer. The matter was set aside and remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 13(1)(c) regarding rental income. For depreciation, it was allowed for AYs 2012-15 but disallowed for AYs 2015-19 due to amendment in Section 11(6).

The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A cannot be made based on material seized from another person; Section 153C should have been invoked. The CIT(A)'s order quashing the assessment was affirmed.

The Tribunal found no error in the assessee's claims regarding loss on sale of fixed assets and provision for doubtful debts. It also noted that no prejudice was caused to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 13(1)(c) regarding rental income. For depreciation, it was allowed for AYs 2012-15 but disallowed for AYs 2015-19 due to amendment in Section 11(6).

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 13(1)(c) for rental income differences. For depreciation, it was allowed for AYs 2012-15 but disallowed for AYs 2015-19 due to amendment in Section 11(6).

The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A cannot be made based on material seized from another person; Section 153C should have been invoked. The CIT(A)'s order quashing the assessment was affirmed.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 13(1)(c) regarding rental income. For depreciation, it was allowed for AYs 2012-15 but disallowed for AYs 2015-19 due to amendment in Section 11(6).

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 13(1)(c) regarding rental income. For depreciation, it was allowed for AYs 2012-15 but disallowed for AYs 2015-19 due to amendment in Section 11(6).

The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO, holding that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing sufficient documentation like PAN, financial statements, and ROC filings. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on various case laws, including Supreme Court decisions, which stated that if the assessee proves identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness, additions under Section 68 are not justified.

The Tribunal held that the timeline for filing the application under Section 80G(5)(iii) should be treated as directory, not mandatory, considering the transitional nature of amendments and genuine hardship. The CIT(Exemption) should have decided the application on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not validly done. It also directed the Assessing Officer to accept the difference in purchase quantity as being on account of silver articles, subject to verification. Several other additions were also contested.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure and allowing the relaunch expenses as revenue expenditure. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, upholding the deletion of disallowance for foreign agency payments and the directions for verification.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 13(1)(c) regarding rental income. For depreciation, it was allowed for AYs 2012-15 but disallowed for AYs 2015-19 due to amendment in Section 11(6).

The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A cannot be made based on material seized from another person; Section 153C should have been invoked. The CIT(A)'s order quashing the assessment was affirmed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure and allowing the relaunch expenses as revenue expenditure. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, upholding the deletion of disallowance for foreign agency payments and the directions for verification.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure and allowing the relaunch expenses as revenue expenditure. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, upholding the deletion of disallowance for foreign agency payments and the directions for verification.

The Tribunal held that while the ex parte order by the CIT(A) was understandable due to non-cooperation, it was passed without considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure and allowing the relaunch expenses as revenue expenditure. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, upholding the deletion of disallowance for foreign agency payments and the directions for verification.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s observation regarding the non-crediting of deferred tax liabilities was erroneous. The assessee had correctly reflected the net effect in the ITR-6.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's explanation plausible. It set aside the impugned orders and remitted the issue of registration back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's explanation plausible. It set aside the impugned orders and remitted the issue of registration back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below erred in applying Section 50C of the Act to the transaction. This is because the amendment to Section 50C, which includes 'or assessable', was effective from 01.10.2009, after the sale transaction.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation. It found that the actual cost of the assets should be reduced by the over-invoiced portion, as this excess amount was not utilized for the assessee's business. The claim that WDV cannot be changed once assets are in the block was rejected as it pertained to additions made during the year.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in overlooking Section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act, which defines speculative transactions. The Tribunal noted a lack of specific details from the assessee to establish a direct nexus between the contracts and their business operations.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation. It found that the actual cost of the assets should be reduced by the over-invoiced portion, as this excess amount was not utilized for the assessee's business. The claim that WDV cannot be changed once assets are in the block was rejected as it pertained to additions made during the year.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation. It found that the actual cost of the assets should be reduced by the over-invoiced portion, as this excess amount was not utilized for the assessee's business. The claim that WDV cannot be changed once assets are in the block was rejected as it pertained to additions made during the year.

The tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years is invalid if the original assessment was under Section 143(3) and there was no failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground relating to the denial of the MFN clause benefit for the lower tax rate on dividends. The decision was based on the Hon'ble Apex Court's ruling in Assessing Officer Circle (International Taxation) 2(2)(2), New Delhi vs. M/s Nestle SA, which held that a notification under Section 90(1) is mandatory for giving effect to a DTAA or its protocol that alters existing law. The Apex Court also clarified that a stipulation in a DTAA with one nation requiring same treatment as a better treatment given to another OECD member nation does not automatically extend that benefit; it requires amendment through a separate notification. The Tribunal found that the interpretation of 'is' in the MFN clause has present signification, making the date of entering into the treaty with India relevant for claiming benefits based on another state's DTAA. Consequently, the assessee's claim for a 5% tax rate was rejected. Regarding the interest levy under Sections 234B/234C, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the assessee's claim that the entire tax liability was discharged by TDS at the 10% rate and to delete the interest of Rs. 18,14,556, deciding this ground in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. The issue of penalty proceedings was not explicitly decided, but the overall result indicates it was not allowed.

The Tribunal observed that both lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the Assessing Officer to frame a fresh assessment, granting the assessee another opportunity to substantiate her case.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer erroneously included interest payments as part of the production cost without verifying the corresponding borrowings. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination and proper quantification of the production cost.

The Tribunal held that the amount payable to the wife's concern was a genuine business transaction and not unexplained income. The remaining amount, which the assessee had offered to tax in the subsequent assessment year, was also correctly treated as not exigible in the current year.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not reducing the amount on which the assessee had already charged interest from the total interest-bearing funds used for advances. The disallowance was to be recalculated after this reduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and that the rejection order was passed prematurely. The matter was restored to the CIT (Exemption) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of cash deposits from its opening cash balance, which was derived from known sources. The Tribunal found no evidence to suggest the assessee had booked non-existing sales or earned unaccounted income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not reducing the amount on which the assessee had already charged interest from the total interest-bearing funds used for advances. The disallowance was to be recalculated after this reduction.

The Tribunal found the assessee's submissions acceptable after perusing bank statements. It concluded that the cash deposited was likely from the sale of agricultural land, which is exempt from tax, and directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that while a revised return filed belatedly might not be considered by the AO, appellate authorities can consider such claims. The Tribunal admitted the claims made in the revised computation and directed the AO to recompute the income based on it, considering brought forward losses.

The Tribunal held that the timelines prescribed for filing Form No. 10AB for registration under Section 12A of the Act, which were extended to 30.09.2023, should also be treated as extended for Form No. 10AB for renewal of approval under Section 80G(5)(iii).

The Tribunal held that the timelines prescribed for filing Form No. 10AB for registration under Section 12A of the Act, which were extended to 30.09.2023, should also be treated as extended for Form No. 10AB for renewal of approval under Section 80G(5)(iii).

The Tribunal admitted fresh evidence submitted by the assessee and found it vital for deciding the issue. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the documents and re-examination of the source of cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) applies to genuine transactions if payments exceed the limit. It restricted the disallowance to Rs. 9,97,395/-, considering payments made on Sundays.

The Tribunal held that the timelines prescribed for filing Form No. 10AB for registration under Section 12A and for renewal of approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) should be treated as extended up to September 30, 2023, considering the genuine hardship faced by charitable institutions.

The Tribunal held that the timelines prescribed for filing Form No. 10AB for registration under Section 12A of the Act, which were extended to 30.09.2023, should also be treated as extended for Form No. 10AB for renewal of approval under Section 80G(5)(iii).

The Tribunal held that the timelines prescribed for filing Form No. 10AB for registration under Section 12A of the Act, which were extended to 30.09.2023, should also be treated as extended for Form No. 10AB for renewal of approval under Section 80G(5)(iii).