ITAT Chennai Judgments — June 2024

The Tribunal held that the entire cash deposits could not be added as unexplained money, applying the rule of consistency. It estimated the net profit at 5% on the total cash deposits for both assessment years.

The Tribunal held that software development expenses are capital in nature and depreciation is allowable at 60%, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also held that recovery of bad debts written off by amalgamating companies is taxable in the hands of the successor company.

The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and the Madras High Court ruling, holding that the filing of Form 67 under Rule 128 is directory in nature. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the Foreign Tax Credit to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the demonetized cash deposits were likely from regular business operations, not unexplained money. It directed the deletion of the addition under Section 69A and confirmed the net profit at 1.62% of the entire turnover.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals ex-parte without considering the condonation of delay and without adjudicating on merits. The AO also passed an ex-parte order.

The Tribunal held that software development expenses are capital in nature and depreciation is allowable at 60%, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also held that recovery of bad debts written off by amalgamating companies is taxable in the hands of the successor company.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of the increase in GP ratio was arbitrary as the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of accounts. It also held that the addition for cash deposits was not warranted as the assessee provided evidence of trade receipts as the source.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed the order ex-parte and, to meet the ends of justice, remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) and submit relevant details.

The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and the Madras High Court ruling, holding that the filing of Form 67 under Rule 128 is directory in nature. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the Foreign Tax Credit to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not given an effective opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) to be heard afresh after providing a proper opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the entire cash deposits could not be added as unexplained money, applying the rule of consistency. It estimated the net profit at 5% on the total cash deposits for both assessment years.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing by the lower authorities. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh look after providing adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing after providing proper opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals ex-parte without considering the condonation of delay and without adjudicating on merits. The AO also passed an ex-parte order.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the appeal was filed manually within the time limit. The CIT(A) had not properly considered the facts presented by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the appeal for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that software development expenses are capital in nature and depreciation is allowable at 60%, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also held that recovery of bad debts written off by amalgamating companies is taxable in the hands of the successor company.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits or providing an opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals ex-parte without considering the condonation of delay and without adjudicating on merits. The AO also passed an ex-parte order.

The Tribunal held that software development expenses are capital in nature and depreciation is allowable at 60%, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also held that recovery of bad debts written off by amalgamating companies is taxable in the hands of the successor company.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to follow the principles of natural justice by not considering the assessee's submissions and additional evidence. The assessment order was passed ex-parte shortly after the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in adding the amount as unexplained money without sufficient material to rebut the assessee's claim of trade receipts. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided books of accounts and other details, and the AO had accepted a portion of the deposits as legitimate trade receipts.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions. To ensure justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted a proper inquiry and verified the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54F, supported by documentary evidence. Therefore, the PCIT's action under Section 263 was not justified as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had condoned the delay in filing the return under Section 119(2)(b), though clarified it was not an acceptance of the deduction claim. The Tribunal set aside the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that software development expenses are capital in nature and depreciation is allowable at 60%, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also held that recovery of bad debts written off by amalgamating companies is taxable in the hands of the successor company.

The Tribunal held that software development expenses are capital in nature and depreciation is allowable at 60%, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also held that recovery of bad debts written off by amalgamating companies is taxable in the hands of the successor company.

The Tribunal held that software development expenses are capital in nature and depreciation is allowable at 60%, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also held that recovery of bad debts written off by amalgamating companies is taxable in the hands of the successor company.

The Tribunal held that software development expenses are capital in nature and depreciation is allowable at 60%, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also held that recovery of bad debts written off by amalgamating companies is taxable in the hands of the successor company.

The Tribunal held that software development expenses are capital in nature and depreciation is allowable at 60%, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also held that recovery of bad debts written off by amalgamating companies is taxable in the hands of the successor company.

The Tribunal held that software development expenses are capital in nature and depreciation is allowable at 60%, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also held that recovery of bad debts written off by amalgamating companies is taxable in the hands of the successor company.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals with a cost. For AY 2018-19, the deduction was allowed based on a prior condonation order by the Chief Commissioner. For AY 2019-20, the disallowance under Section 143(1) was deleted as the amended provisions allowing such disallowance were not applicable for that assessment year.

The Tribunal held that if the recipient parties have declared the income in their respective returns, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) is not to be made, following the beneficial principle of applying non-jurisdictional High Court decisions. The disallowance was reversed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits. Since no advance tax was payable or admitted by the assessee, Section 249(4)(b) was not applicable.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the due date for filing Form 10AB to June 30, 2024, even for applications rejected before the circular. The assessee was given an opportunity to file a fresh application.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits, as there was no advance tax payable and nothing on record to suggest the assessee admitted any advance tax.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue did not object. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) to present their case.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without deciding on merits. To uphold principles of natural justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 50 days, considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. For the ends of justice, the impugned order was set aside and restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits after hearing the assessee.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals with a cost. For AY 2018-19, the deduction was allowed based on a prior condonation order by the Chief Commissioner. For AY 2019-20, the disallowance under Section 143(1) was deleted as the amended provisions allowing such disallowance were not applicable for that assessment year.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to file a condonation application with supporting documents. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the application and decide the appeal on merits if the delay is condoned.

The Tribunal held that the downward adjustment made by the Assessing Officer in the final assessment order dated 17.10.2019 is not justified. The reasoning was based on the factual matrix and the findings of a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13, which dealt with a similar issue on identical facts. The coordinate bench had observed that the assessee had paid for these services in earlier years, which were accepted by the revenue. Therefore, the Assessing Officer/DRP/TPO could not treat the value of management services charges as Nil in the current year. The Tribunal found that the TPO's approach of determining ALP to be Nil without applying any prescribed method, and on the basis that services were not required, was not in accordance with the statutory mandate. The TP provisions mandate the application of a prescribed method to arrive at ALP. The Tribunal also noted that all other services availed by the assessee under the same agreement were accepted at ALP. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the due date for filing Form 10A/10AB to June 30, 2024, and allowed for fresh applications even if previously rejected. Since the assessee intended to file a fresh application within the extended period, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(Exemptions). The application was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision after allowing the assessee one more opportunity to submit documents.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte for non-compliance. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remitted the matter back for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as a fresh application for registration was granted following a CBDT circular extending the due date for filing Form 10AB.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. For the ends of justice, the impugned order was set aside and restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the due date for filing Form 10A/10AB to June 30, 2024, even for previously rejected applications. Since the assessee intended to file a fresh application within this extended period, the appeal was rendered infructuous.