ITAT Chennai Judgments — July 2024

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and the claim for foreign tax credit should be allowed if filed before the assessment order is passed, following the Madras High Court's decision.

The Tribunal restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case. This was based on the assessee's plea of non-deliberate non-appearance and a commitment to cooperate.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues were decided by a Co-ordinate Bench and the Madras High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matters back for reconsideration.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues were decided by a Co-ordinate Bench and the Madras High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matters back for reconsideration.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues were decided by a Co-ordinate Bench and the Madras High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matters back for reconsideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel stated the appeal was a duplication and requested dismissal. The Departmental Representative did not object. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not sustainable based on the monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. The specific exception cited by the Revenue was found to be not relevant to the present case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a fresh application for approval under section 80G. The Revenue did not oppose the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication pending the decision of the CBDT on the assessee's petition for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b). For the second appeal, the Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from another cooperative society, following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment.

The Tribunal found that both lower authorities failed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to present its case and substantiate its claims. Therefore, the case was set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal held that amortization of goodwill is an abnormal item and should be excluded from operating expenditure for computing arm's length margins. It also directed the Assessing Officer to grant adjustment for amortization of goodwill.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present evidence for the cash deposits, upholding the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that both lower authorities failed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to present its case and substantiate its claims. Therefore, the case was set aside for de novo adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) should have examined the trust deed to determine the nature of the trust's objects. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after verifying the trust deed.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) should have examined the trust deed to determine the nature of the trust's objects. Since the CIT(E) did not properly verify the trust deed, the matter was set aside.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication pending the decision of the CBDT on the assessee's petition for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b). For the second appeal, the Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from another cooperative society, following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation as the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the amended Act. Consequently, all consequential reassessment proceedings were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the belated deposit of employees' PF and ESI contributions, even if made before the due date of filing the return of income, would be treated as income of the assessee for not depositing them within the statutory due date. Therefore, the disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, imposing a cost of Rs. 5000 on the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside due to inadequate opportunity provided to the assessee, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that a subsequent CBDT circular extended the time limit, and the assessee filed a fresh application within the extended period. Therefore, the appeal became academic.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) rejected the applications based on a technicality without providing an opportunity for rectification. The matter was remanded for reconsideration on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) rejected the applications based on a technicality without providing an opportunity for rectification. The matter was remanded for reconsideration on merits.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on the disallowance of reinsurance premium ceded to non-resident reinsurers, rejecting the Revenue's grounds. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding payments made to motor car dealers for infra payments, following a High Court judgment. However, issues related to non-adjudication by the CIT(A) were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to prosecute their case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on the disallowance of reinsurance premium ceded to non-resident reinsurers, rejecting the Revenue's grounds. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding payments made to motor car dealers for infra payments, following a High Court judgment. However, issues related to non-adjudication by the CIT(A) were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on the disallowance of reinsurance premium ceded to non-resident reinsurers, rejecting the Revenue's grounds. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding payments made to motor car dealers for infra payments, following a High Court judgment. However, issues related to non-adjudication by the CIT(A) were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on the disallowance of reinsurance premium ceded to non-resident reinsurers, rejecting the Revenue's grounds. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding payments made to motor car dealers for infra payments, following a High Court judgment. However, issues related to non-adjudication by the CIT(A) were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on the disallowance of reinsurance premium ceded to non-resident reinsurers, rejecting the Revenue's grounds. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding payments made to motor car dealers for infra payments, following a High Court judgment. However, issues related to non-adjudication by the CIT(A) were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and non-speaking, and the assessee had demonstrated filing submissions. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO for a fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated filing submissions, though possibly after the due date. It was of the view that the assessee deserved a chance to present its case properly to the Assessing Officer (AO). Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) and AO were set aside.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on the disallowance of reinsurance premium ceded to non-resident reinsurers, rejecting the Revenue's grounds. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding payments made to motor car dealers for infra payments, following a High Court judgment. However, issues related to non-adjudication by the CIT(A) were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT had issued a circular directing admission of applications for condonation of delay for Section 80P claims. Following a coordinate bench's order, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot go beyond the issues selected for limited scrutiny without proper justification and notice. However, since the assessee did not provide evidence of the original limited scrutiny issues, the initial grounds were dismissed.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on the disallowance of reinsurance premium ceded to non-resident reinsurers, rejecting the Revenue's grounds. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding payments made to motor car dealers for infra payments, following a High Court judgment. However, issues related to non-adjudication by the CIT(A) were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on the disallowance of reinsurance premium ceded to non-resident reinsurers, rejecting the Revenue's grounds. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding payments made to motor car dealers for infra payments, following a High Court judgment. However, issues related to non-adjudication by the CIT(A) were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on the disallowance of reinsurance premium ceded to non-resident reinsurers, rejecting the Revenue's grounds. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding payments made to motor car dealers for infra payments, following a High Court judgment. However, issues related to non-adjudication by the CIT(A) were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on the disallowance of reinsurance premium ceded to non-resident reinsurers, rejecting the Revenue's grounds. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding payments made to motor car dealers for infra payments, following a High Court judgment. However, issues related to non-adjudication by the CIT(A) were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte due to non-compliance. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present her case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issue on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on the disallowance of reinsurance premium ceded to non-resident reinsurers, rejecting the Revenue's grounds. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding payments made to motor car dealers for infra payments, following a High Court judgment. However, issues related to non-adjudication by the CIT(A) were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on the disallowance of reinsurance premium ceded to non-resident reinsurers, rejecting the Revenue's grounds. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding payments made to motor car dealers for infra payments, following a High Court judgment. However, issues related to non-adjudication by the CIT(A) were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order on the disallowance of reinsurance premium ceded to non-resident reinsurers, rejecting the Revenue's grounds. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding payments made to motor car dealers for infra payments, following a High Court judgment. However, issues related to non-adjudication by the CIT(A) were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that ex-parte orders were passed due to non-compliance by the assessee. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, to meet the ends of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order without considering documents. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal should have been filed against the order u/s 143(1) as it was an appealable order under Section 246(1)(a). The doctrine of merger did not apply, and the CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal as the grounds were not emanating from the subsequent order u/s 143(3).