ITAT Chennai Judgments — May 2024

The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption was not justified, especially since the trust was registered for a long time. The appeal was allowed, and the Assessing Officer was directed to consider the claim under Section 11/12.

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing a hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, but dismissed the assessee's appeal against the rectification order as academic. The Revenue's miscellaneous application was also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted merely as an employee for the group companies and the deposits in his personal accounts were not his income. However, certain additions for specific assessment years were sustained.

The Tribunal decided that indexation benefit on government securities is allowable and that higher depreciation on commercial vehicles used for leasing is permissible. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's grounds related to these issues.

The Tribunal decided that indexation benefit on government securities is allowable and that higher depreciation on commercial vehicles used for leasing is permissible. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's grounds related to these issues.

The Tribunal decided that indexation benefit on government securities is allowable and that higher depreciation on commercial vehicles used for leasing is permissible. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's grounds related to these issues.

The Tribunal decided that indexation benefit on government securities is allowable and that higher depreciation on commercial vehicles used for leasing is permissible. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's grounds related to these issues.

The Tribunal held that additions in completed assessments under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found, the additions were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that additions in completed assessments under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found, the additions were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted merely as an employee for the group companies and the deposits in his personal accounts were not his income. However, certain additions for specific assessment years were sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted merely as an employee for the group companies and the deposits in his personal accounts were not his income. However, certain additions for specific assessment years were sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted merely as an employee for the group companies and the deposits in his personal accounts were not his income. However, certain additions for specific assessment years were sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted merely as an employee for the group companies and the deposits in his personal accounts were not his income. However, certain additions for specific assessment years were sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted merely as an employee for the group companies and the deposits in his personal accounts were not his income. However, certain additions for specific assessment years were sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted merely as an employee for the group companies and the deposits in his personal accounts were not his income. However, certain additions for specific assessment years were sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was bad in law as it was not based on incriminating material found during the search of the assessee or its group. Information from an earlier search on a third party was used without a separate satisfaction note.

The Tribunal held that the market value of electricity for Section 80IA deduction should be the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplies to industrial consumers, not the rate at which power is sold to a supplier. The assessee's claim was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the market value of electricity for Section 80IA deduction should be the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplies to industrial consumers, not the rate at which power is sold to a supplier. The assessee's claim was allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity. It followed its own previous order in the assessee's own case for AY 2013-14, which had quashed the reopening due to lack of tangible material and the AO having only a change of opinion.

The Tribunal decided most of the issues in favor of the assessee, particularly regarding depreciation on commercial vehicles and indexation benefit on government securities. Some grounds raised by the revenue were dismissed, while others were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal decided that indexation benefit on government securities is allowable and that higher depreciation on commercial vehicles used for leasing is permissible. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's grounds related to these issues.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. Additions not supported by such material are not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that additions in completed assessments under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found, the additions were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was bad in law because the impugned addition was based on information from a prior search on a third party, not on incriminating material found during the assessee's own search. Consequently, the assessment was liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was bad in law as it was not based on incriminating material found during the search of the assessee or its group. Information from an earlier search on a third party was used without a separate satisfaction note.

The Tribunal held that Section 44BB, with its non-obstante clause, overrides Sections 28 to 41, including Section 40(a)(i). Therefore, the disallowance was not warranted as the income was computed under Section 44BB.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear before the lower appellate authority, set aside the impugned order to uphold the principles of natural justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity. It followed its own previous order in the assessee's own case for AY 2013-14, which had quashed the reopening due to lack of tangible material and the AO having only a change of opinion.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity of being heard before the AO. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in TIN Box Company, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal held that the individuals were consultants appointed for specific projects and not managers of the trust. Therefore, the advances did not fall under Section 13(3) and did not attract the provisions of Section 13(1)(c), allowing the exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal noted that the employee's contribution to PF/ESI was remitted before the statutory due dates, and the confusion arose from an inadvertent error in the Tax Audit Report. The Labour Welfare Fund was also disallowed twice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted merely as an employee for the group companies and the deposits in his personal accounts were not his income. However, certain additions for specific assessment years were sustained.

The Tribunal held that the market value of electricity for Section 80IA deduction should be the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplies to industrial consumers, not the rate at which power is sold to a supplier. The assessee's claim was allowed.

The Tribunal held that Section 11(6) of the Act requires a fresh look at the application of income by the Trust. The matter was set aside to the AO to re-examine the application of income and calculate tax liability.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions. The case was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the source of the deposits.

The Tribunal restored the issue of ad-hoc disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted an opportunity to substantiate its claims.

The Tribunal restored the issue of ad-hoc disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted an opportunity to substantiate its claims.

The Tribunal restored the issue of ad-hoc disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted an opportunity to substantiate its claims.

The Tribunal held that the late fee on TDS payments is compensatory and allowable under Section 37. Similarly, the interest paid on late GST payments was also held to be allowable under Section 37.

The Tribunal held that the trust was not existing solely for educational purposes, as evidenced by its trust deed listing multiple objects. Therefore, it was disqualified from claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad).

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable if no exempt income was earned, and the Explanation to Section 14A is prospective. It confirmed the disallowance for belated employee PF/ESI contributions and dismissed other grounds as not pressed or infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order had an adverse impact on the assessee and was passed in violation of Section 154(3) of the Act, as no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the trust was not existing solely for educational purposes, as evidenced by its trust deed listing multiple objects. Therefore, it was disqualified from claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad).

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the concessional tax scheme as the delay in filing Form 10-IC was condoned by a CBDT circular. The assessee's return was filed within the due date, and the form was filed before the extended deadline mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable if no exempt income was earned, and the Explanation to Section 14A is prospective. It confirmed the disallowance for belated employee PF/ESI contributions and dismissed other grounds as not pressed or infructuous.

The Tribunal found that both the assessee's 1% estimation and the AO's 6% estimation were without sound basis. The legal grounds were correctly adjudicated by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted significant variations in the assessee's submitted cash-in-hand figures between assessment years. Since the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock arose from normal business activity and should be assessed as 'Business Income' only. The provisions of Section 69B and 115BBE were deemed not applicable.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's arguments that certain issues were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny and that a specific ground was not adjudicated. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.