ITAT Chennai Judgments — August 2024

The Tribunal held that the expenses were genuine business expenses for labor and clearance work, not hit by Section 37(1) explanation as no illegal payments were made. They also noted that an earlier disclosure of Rs. 1.10 crores covered similar incidental expenses, making a further addition for Rs. 14,44,200/- a double addition.

The assessee's counsel informed the Tribunal that the assessee is unable to proceed with the appeal as they could not obtain necessary documents from the builder. The counsel also assured that the taxes and interest would be paid.

The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition for undervaluation of closing stock, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the quality of granite differed. However, for the variation in output, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the addition by allowing a benefit for damaged or unsaleable granite.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was ex-parte and the CIT(A)-NFAC's order was also based on it without considering the merits. While the AO claimed to have given opportunities, the assessee stated they were not heard. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal felt the assessee should be given another opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the expenses were genuine business expenses for labor and clearance work, not hit by Section 37(1) explanation as no illegal payments were made. They also noted that an earlier disclosure of Rs. 1.10 crores covered similar incidental expenses, making a further addition for Rs. 14,44,200/- a double addition.

The Tribunal held that the expenses were genuine business expenses for labor and clearance work, not hit by Section 37(1) explanation as no illegal payments were made. They also noted that an earlier disclosure of Rs. 1.10 crores covered similar incidental expenses, making a further addition for Rs. 14,44,200/- a double addition.

The Tribunal noted that a previous order for assessment year 1994-95 had remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue after reviewing documents with CBI and DRI, providing the assessee a fair opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the expenses were genuine business expenses for labor and clearance work, not hit by Section 37(1) explanation as no illegal payments were made. They also noted that an earlier disclosure of Rs. 1.10 crores covered similar incidental expenses, making a further addition for Rs. 14,44,200/- a double addition.

The tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the expenses were genuine business expenses for labor and clearance work, not hit by Section 37(1) explanation as no illegal payments were made. They also noted that an earlier disclosure of Rs. 1.10 crores covered similar incidental expenses, making a further addition for Rs. 14,44,200/- a double addition.

The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred for increasing the capital base of a company, including stamp duty, is capital in nature and not deductible. The claim under Section 35D was also found to be not applicable as stamp duty is not an eligible expense under that section.

The tribunal held that the assessee's counsel failed to demonstrate any mistake apparent on the face of the record that would warrant a modification of the previous order. Consequently, the MA filed by the assessee was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that while res judicata doesn't apply, consistency should be maintained. The penalty was deleted as the additions were estimated. The quantum appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The CIT(A) restricted the addition to ₹.16,08,071/- by adopting the peak credit method. The tribunal, relying on High Court and ITAT decisions in similar cases, found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and followed the peak credit method.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to file submissions, and the AO to frame the assessment after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It was held that the excess jewellery, if unexplained, should have been taxed in the year of search (AY 2015-16) and not AY 2013-14, especially since the assessee retracted his initial admission and provided supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was a non-resident and had provided sufficient evidence, including a salary certificate and ledger details, to prove that the salary was earned and received outside India. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was incorrect.

The tribunal held that Section 127 of the Income Tax Act was not applicable as the transfer was within the same range due to a change in monetary limits. It also dismissed grounds related to the limitation of notices and additions made on account of credit card payments, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT failed to point out specific errors in the reassessment order and that the issues raised were already examined by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the revisionary order was deemed to be without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal noted that a previous order for assessment year 1994-95 had remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue after reviewing documents with CBI and DRI, providing the assessee a fair opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the issue of exclusion of securities held as stock-in-trade for Section 14A disallowance is covered by a Special Bench decision and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. For the Section 80JJAA deduction, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The assessee prayed to withdraw the appeal, and the Departmental Representative did not oppose this request. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. The notice for reopening and the consequential reassessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal set aside the issue of unsecured loans to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to prove identity, creditworthiness, and source. For turmeric trading income, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to compute income at 8% of gross receipts under Section 44AD.

The Tribunal allowed the issues related to bonus/ex-gratia, security charges, and interest on deposits for statistical purposes, remanding them back to the AO for fresh consideration with additional evidence. The issue of unrecognized staff provident fund was also remanded to the AO for reconsideration in light of Supreme Court and High Court judgments.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) and set aside the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case properly.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The appeal was set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A), and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits. The Tribunal also directed the lifting of bank account attachments.

The Tribunal held that the reference to the Valuation Officer under Section 142A was valid and made within the pendency of assessment proceedings. It also ruled that for the purpose of Section 54F, a registered sale deed is necessary to establish the 'purchase' of a residential house property, not just an agreement to sell.

The Tribunal held that VAT is a tax levied by the State Government under its exclusive domain and is distinct from fees or charges. Therefore, it does not attract the provisions of Section 40(a)(iib) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, including the decision of the Delhi High Court, and decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for all assessment years.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A), and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits. The Tribunal also directed the lifting of bank account attachments.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite notices, and the notices were issued during the Covid-19 period. The Tribunal considered the principles of natural justice and decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication. This was done to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, considering the ex-parte assessment before the AO and the notices issued during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal held that the revised returns, on which notices under Section 143(2) were issued, were valid. The additions made by the Assessing Officer based on the invalidated revised returns were deemed unjustified.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the assessment to the AO. The assessee is directed to file all relevant documents before the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a fresh application as per a recent CBDT circular, which was pending. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal against the first rejection was infructuous because a subsequent application was also rejected, and the assessee intended to appeal against that later rejection. Therefore, the current appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A), and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits. The Tribunal also directed the lifting of bank account attachments.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the current appeal would not affect the earlier approval granted under Section 80G.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was non-cooperative, the assessment order was ex-parte and the CIT(A) did not call for further details. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given an adequate opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the AO for a fresh assessment (denovo assessment).

The Tribunal decided to allow the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the AO for denovo adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing, considering the ex-parte proceedings before the AO and the circumstances during the Covid-19 pandemic for the CIT(A) notices.

The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, including the decision of the Delhi High Court, and decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for all assessment years.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A), and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits. The Tribunal also directed the lifting of bank account attachments.

The Tribunal held that the revised returns, on which notices under Section 143(2) were issued, were valid. The additions made by the Assessing Officer based on the invalidated revised returns were deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, including the decision of the Delhi High Court, and decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for all assessment years.

The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, including the decision of the Delhi High Court, and decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for all assessment years.

The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, including the decision of the Delhi High Court, and decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for all assessment years.

The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances, including the decision of the Delhi High Court, and decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for all assessment years.