ITAT Chennai Judgments — April 2024

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's non-appearance, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal, while agreeing with the Revenue's plea for dismissal, granted another opportunity to the assessee on grounds of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication based on the principle of natural justice. The assessee is directed to present their case properly, failing which the CIT(A) can proceed on merits.

The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to substantiate their case properly.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue back to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case and substantiate its application.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the respondent's submissions, granted the assessee another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

While acknowledging the assessee's non-appearance, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication to uphold the principle of natural justice, granting one final opportunity.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to await the outcome of the condonation petition filed before the CBDT and re-adjudicate the appeal.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is directory in nature, not mandatory. Following previous Tribunal and High Court decisions, the AO was directed to grant the Foreign Tax Credit after verifying Form 67.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the respondent's opposition, granted the assessee another opportunity based on the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The issue of registration was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the AO's method of calculating the difference was flawed. The assessee was allowed to submit additional evidence, and the issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the seized materials, including rough daybooks, were incriminating and justified the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A. However, the claim for exemption under Sections 10 & 11 was denied as registration under Section 12AA was granted only from a later date.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of deduction for the second property purchased in the wife's name, stating that Section 54 allows deduction for only one residential house. However, the Tribunal remanded the issue of Rs. 40,00,000 payment to the AO for verification.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the audited books of accounts were not doubted and purchases and stock movements were consistent with sales. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no error in deleting the addition.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had discharged the onus to prove the assessee's receipt of payments reflected in the seized material with cogent evidence. The Tribunal also found no legal infirmity in the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s reasoning regarding the satisfaction note.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had discharged the onus to prove the assessee's receipt of payments reflected in the seized material with cogent evidence. The Tribunal also found no legal infirmity in the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s reasoning regarding the satisfaction note.

The Tribunal held that the seized materials, including rough daybooks, were incriminating and justified the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A. However, the claim for exemption under Sections 10 & 11 was denied as registration under Section 12AA was granted only from a later date.

The Tribunal held that the seized materials, including rough daybooks, were incriminating and justified the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A. However, the claim for exemption under Sections 10 & 11 was denied as registration under Section 12AA was granted only from a later date.

The Tribunal held that the seized materials, including rough daybooks, were incriminating and justified the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A. However, the claim for exemption under Sections 10 & 11 was denied as registration under Section 12AA was granted only from a later date.

The Tribunal held that the seized materials, including rough daybooks, were incriminating and justified the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A. However, the claim for exemption under Sections 10 & 11 was denied as registration under Section 12AA was granted only from a later date.

The Tribunal held that the seized materials, including rough daybooks, were incriminating and justified the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A. However, the claim for exemption under Sections 10 & 11 was denied as registration under Section 12AA was granted only from a later date.

The Tribunal held that the seized materials, including rough daybooks, were incriminating and justified the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A. However, the claim for exemption under Sections 10 & 11 was denied as registration under Section 12AA was granted only from a later date.

The Tribunal held that the timeline for filing the application under Section 80G(5)(iii) should be treated as directory and not mandatory, following previous decisions and a High Court ruling. The extended deadline of 30.09.2023 was considered applicable.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee is granted one more opportunity to furnish complete details and substantiate their case.

The Tribunal held that the seized materials, including rough daybooks, were incriminating and justified the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A. However, the claim for exemption under Sections 10 & 11 was denied as registration under Section 12AA was granted only from a later date.

The Tribunal held that the seized materials, including rough daybooks, were incriminating and justified the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A. However, the claim for exemption under Sections 10 & 11 was denied as registration under Section 12AA was granted only from a later date.

The Tribunal held that the seized materials, including rough daybooks, were incriminating and justified the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A. However, the claim for exemption under Sections 10 & 11 was denied as registration under Section 12AA was granted only from a later date.

The Tribunal held that the seized materials, including rough daybooks, were incriminating and justified the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A. However, the claim for exemption under Sections 10 & 11 was denied as registration under Section 12AA was granted only from a later date.

The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's estimation of cash sales to be incorrect, especially since the books of account were not rejected and no variance was found with VAT returns. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to rework the excess cash deposit by fixing average cash sales at 75% of the daily average sales admitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had discharged the onus to prove the assessee's receipt of payments reflected in the seized material with cogent evidence. The Tribunal also found no legal infirmity in the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s reasoning regarding the satisfaction note.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's absence and lack of representation, decided to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to present its case. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back.

The Tribunal held that the assessee satisfied the conditions for claiming bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s findings on the disallowance of bad debts.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was based on a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. The CIT(A) had rightly quashed the reassessment order.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was passed for non-prosecution and, in the interest of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found the addition to be on the higher side and that the CIT(A) lacked a basis for the estimation. Citing a previous judgment, the Tribunal held that expecting bills for agricultural expenses in an unorganized market is an impossible task.

The Tribunal held that provision for leave encashment is an ascertained liability and cannot be added back to book profit. It also ruled that the census data of 2001 should be considered for classifying rural branches for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia), as the 2011 data was not available before the start of the previous year.

The Tribunal held that provision for leave encashment is an ascertained liability and cannot be added back to book profit. It also ruled that the census data of 2001 should be considered for classifying rural branches for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia), as the 2011 data was not available before the start of the previous year.

The Tribunal held that provision for leave encashment is an ascertained liability and cannot be added back to book profit. It also ruled that the census data of 2001 should be considered for classifying rural branches for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia), as the 2011 data was not available before the start of the previous year.

The Tribunal held that the assessee satisfied the conditions for claiming bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s findings on the disallowance of bad debts.

The Tribunal held that provision for leave encashment is an ascertained liability and cannot be added back to book profit. It also ruled that the census data of 2001 should be considered for classifying rural branches for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia), as the 2011 data was not available before the start of the previous year.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had now provided a certificate from the construction company confirming the aggregate amount received for the project. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was unsustainable.

The Tribunal confirmed the computation of capital gains on both properties. However, it found that a portion of the cash deposits was justified by the sale consideration received, and accordingly deleted a part of the addition. The claim for agricultural income was not interfered with.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue regarding Section 12AB registration for the same assessee was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the application for Section 80G approval was also set aside and remanded.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow expenses under Section 57(iii) for income from other sources, following a coordinate bench decision. However, for the cross-objection, the Tribunal found that neither the CIT(A) nor the AO properly adjudicated the issue of doubtful advances and ad-hoc disallowances.

The Tribunal held that filing of Form 67 is directory in nature, not mandatory, following the Madras High Court's decision in Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy. Therefore, the credit should be granted.

The Tribunal held that the commission income was offered as business income, and therefore, related expenditures should be allowed. It also directed verification of TDS credit, as it was deducted against the assessee's PAN and should be allowed once.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim. If the disallowance for the prior year (AY 2012-13) had reached finality, the expenditure would be allowable in the current year, and the offered income would be reduced.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow expenses under Section 57(iii) for income from other sources, following a coordinate bench decision. However, for the cross-objection, the Tribunal found that neither the CIT(A) nor the AO properly adjudicated the issue of doubtful advances and ad-hoc disallowances.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was barred by limitation, following a previous ITAT decision. The Tribunal also found the initiation of parallel proceedings for substantive and protective assessments to be inappropriate.