ITAT Chennai Judgments — July 2024

The Tribunal has corrected the cause title of the appeal as per the revised Form 36 filed by the Department. This correction pertains to the identification of the appellant and respondent in the case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the notice under Section 153A for AY 2011-12 was invalid. This was based on the Madras High Court's ruling that the ten-year period for issuing notices should be counted backwards from the end of the assessment year in which the search was conducted.

The Tribunal held that the return filed under Section 153A should be accepted as the regular return was invalid. It also held that no under-reporting of income occurred as the assessed income matched the returned income. The addition for AY 2019-20 was deleted as the agreement was unsigned and no evidence of cash payment was found.

The Tribunal held that the return filed under Section 153A should be accepted as the regular return was invalid. It also held that no under-reporting of income occurred as the assessed income matched the returned income. The addition for AY 2019-20 was deleted as the agreement was unsigned and no evidence of cash payment was found.

The Tribunal held that a retracted admission, without corroborative evidence unearthed during the search, cannot solely form the basis for addition. Suspicion cannot substitute proof.

The Tribunal held that a retracted admission, without corroborative evidence unearthed during the search, cannot solely form the basis for addition. Suspicion cannot substitute proof.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered were marketing support and did not 'make available' technical knowledge to the assessee. Therefore, the payment did not constitute 'fee for technical services' under the DTAA and the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered were marketing support and did not 'make available' technical knowledge to the assessee. Therefore, the payment did not constitute 'fee for technical services' under the DTAA and the disallowance was not justified.

The tribunal has issued a corrigendum to correct the name of the representative counsel for the assessee in the cause title as requested.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable in law because the show-cause notice did not frame a specific charge against the assessee, distinguishing between 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income'.

The Tribunal held that the application should not be rejected on mere technical grounds. The CIT(E) was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to rectify the mistake and then decide the application on merits.

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to explain the delay before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal found deficiencies in the orders of the lower authorities, particularly regarding the AO's lack of specific findings on the genuineness of deductions and the CIT(A)'s failure to adjudicate on merits. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the time limit for filing such applications was extended by the CBDT. Therefore, the rejection based on the timeline was incorrect. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the application on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered were marketing support and did not 'make available' technical knowledge to the assessee. Therefore, the payment did not constitute 'fee for technical services' under the DTAA and the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered were marketing support and did not 'make available' technical knowledge to the assessee. Therefore, the payment did not constitute 'fee for technical services' under the DTAA and the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the market value of power supplied by the assessee to its industrial units should be computed based on the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplied power to consumers in the open market. The revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeals were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the market value of power supplied by the assessee to its industrial units should be computed based on the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplied power to consumers in the open market. The revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeals were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the market value of power supplied by the assessee to its industrial units should be computed based on the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplied power to consumers in the open market. The revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeals were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the market value of power supplied by the assessee to its industrial units should be computed based on the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplied power to consumers in the open market. The revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeals were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the market value of power supplied by the assessee to its industrial units should be computed based on the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplied power to consumers in the open market. The revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeals were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received were advances and not taxable income in the relevant years as there was no transfer of title or completion of the contract. The professional charges were also allowed as they were for identifying buyers for retained land and paid after TDS compliance.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received were advances and not taxable income in the relevant years as there was no transfer of title or completion of the contract. The professional charges were also allowed as they were for identifying buyers for retained land and paid after TDS compliance.

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case. This opportunity is conditional on the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- for both appeals within 30 days.

The Tribunal held that the impugned payments for brokerage and commission were incurred for the purpose of the assessee's business to facilitate the recovery of advances, constituting a business loss. Similarly, the write-off of advances was also considered a routine business loss, not a capital loss, as the advances were given to acquire inventory for business.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received were advances and not taxable income in the relevant years as there was no transfer of title or completion of the contract. The professional charges were also allowed as they were for identifying buyers for retained land and paid after TDS compliance.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the commission income of Rs.575 Lacs was offered to tax in AY 2014-15, and if so, to delete the addition. The AO was also asked to verify that the remaining Rs.100 Lacs did not relate to the assessee. The nature of other credits was also to be verified.

The Tribunal held that the borrowing cost paid to the holding company was not excessive or unreasonable and thus Section 40A(2)(b) was not applicable, reversing the CIT(A)'s enhancement on this count. The disallowance of provision for professional charges was confirmed as it was an unascertained liability.

The Tribunal held that the market value of power supplied by the assessee to its industrial units should be computed based on the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplied power to consumers in the open market. The revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeals were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the property was acquired by the assessee against advances given by Rakindo, and the value was agreed upon in a compromise settlement. Since no actual cash flow occurred and a corresponding liability was created, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition should be based on the market value agreed upon in the Memorandum of Compromise, as no actual consideration flowed between the parties. The disallowance of filling cost was upheld due to insufficient substantiation.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered were marketing support and did not 'make available' technical knowledge to the assessee. Therefore, the payment did not constitute 'fee for technical services' under the DTAA and the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that a retracted admission, without corroborative evidence unearthed during the search, cannot form the sole basis for an addition. Mere suspicion cannot substitute proof.

The Tribunal held that a retracted admission, without corroborative evidence unearthed during the search, cannot solely form the basis for addition. Suspicion cannot substitute proof.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 56F is directory, not mandatory. A technical default in filing the form does not jeopardize the deduction claim, especially when the substantive requirements are met and the claim has been allowed in previous years.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were generated from business activities and were recorded in the books of account, with no defects pointed out. The Assessing Officer did not follow the prescribed procedure for demonetization cases.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable in law because the show-cause notice did not frame a specific charge against the assessee, distinguishing between 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income'.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the full deduction under Section 54F. Relying on High Court precedents, it was decided that multiple flats acquired through a single development agreement on the same land should be considered as a single residential unit for the purpose of the exemption.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the notice under Section 153A for AY 2011-12 was invalid. This was based on the Madras High Court's ruling that the ten-year period for issuing notices should be counted backwards from the end of the assessment year in which the search was conducted.

The tribunal restored the issue of unsecured loans and consequential interest disallowance back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of donation and repetition of disallowance were also remitted back to the CIT(A). The disallowance under Section 14A and Section 36(1)(va) were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal exparte without giving an opportunity to the assessee and without considering the merits of the case. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the application should not be rejected on mere technical grounds and the assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify the mistake. The CIT(E) was directed to allow the assessee to rectify the error and then decide the application on merits.

The ITAT accepted the assessee's plea for another opportunity and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal directed the AO to accept a profit rate of 6.5% instead of the 8% estimated by him. This was considered a reasonable estimation given the assessee's turnover.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case, providing another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, decided to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the application was not time-barred, referencing a co-ordinate bench decision and a Madras High Court ruling that declared a restrictive clause in a CBDT circular as arbitrary. Consequently, the CIT(E) was directed to consider the application on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the application was not time-barred, relying on a co-ordinate bench decision and a Madras High Court ruling that declared a restrictive circular clause as arbitrary. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the application on merits.

The Tribunal held that the application was not time-barred, relying on a co-ordinate bench decision and a Madras High Court ruling that declared a restrictive clause in a CBDT circular as arbitrary. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the application on merits.

The Tribunal held that the application was not time-barred, citing a co-ordinate bench decision and a Madras High Court ruling that declared a restrictive circular clause as arbitrary. The Tribunal also noted a subsequent CBDT circular extending the timeline.