ITAT Chennai Judgments — October 2024

The Tribunal held that the guarantee fees received by the assessee are not taxable in India. Following a previous decision in the assessee's own case, it was concluded that such income arises in the country of residence (Korea) as per the DTAA.

The Tribunal held that as per Article 15(1) of the India-Thailand DTAA, the salary income is taxable in Thailand. The DTAA provisions override the Act, and therefore, the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide essential documents to substantiate their claim before the lower authorities. While the assessee presented an agreement with PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and financial statements, they admitted that the evidence could not be produced earlier.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing reasonable causes such as statutory audit obligations and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, aligning with Supreme Court decisions on condonation. As the CIT(A) did not decide the grounds of appeal on merits, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, confirming the addition of income estimated at 8% of the cash deposited. The assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to support their claim of earning only 5% commission.

The Tribunal noted that no representations or documents were made before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) to prove the sources of cash deposits. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order based on the impression that third parties should not be giving cash for money transfers when bank accounts are readily available. The Tribunal referred to the assessee's application for additional evidence, including agreements with Oxigen Services, Spice Digital, Form 26AS, and email conversations, which were not available before the lower authorities. The Tribunal found that the AO discussed similar issues in AY 2018-19 by bringing business activities in detail. Since the assessee was able to show required documents before the Tribunal in support of her claim, the Tribunal deemed it proper to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file evidence before the AO. Therefore, grounds 2 & 3 were allowed for statistical purposes. Similarly, for grounds 4 & 5 concerning the addition of ₹95,82,427/-, the Tribunal considered that the AO was required to determine the income on verification of Form 26AS and thus remanded the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file evidence. Grounds 4 & 5 were also allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) passed the assessment order without conducting proper inquiries and verifications regarding the cash payment for property purchase and the genuineness of sundry debtors/creditors. This rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, justifying the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment by the Assessing Officer was invalid as it was based on a 'change of opinion' and not on any tangible material or new information. This was consistent with previous decisions of the Tribunal on similar facts for other assessment years and relied on Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal noted that the disallowance was restricted by the CIT(A) based on evidence produced by the assessee, and the penalty was imposed solely on the ground of non-submission of vouchers. Citing High Court precedent, the Tribunal held that non-submission of vouchers does not amount to concealment of income, and thus, the penalty is not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) passed the assessment order without conducting proper inquiries and verifications regarding the cash payment for property purchase and the genuineness of sundry debtors/creditors. This rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, justifying the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted relevant documents as per the paper book, which the CIT(E) apparently did not consider. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the cash deposits were related to transport charges and the assessee, engaged in a small transport business, had limited knowledge of tax proceedings. However, there was no evidence to claim presumptive income under Section 44AE and the assessee had failed to provide necessary details. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to treat 15% of the addition as income from business and delete the rest.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted relevant documents as per the paper book, which the CIT(E) apparently did not consider. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted the lack of compliance before the CIT(A) but accepted the assessee's plea for another opportunity. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration with liberty to pass orders as per law if details are not furnished.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not get an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E). In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not made proper inquiries into the demerger expenses and carried forward losses. The PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 as the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal accepted the land as agricultural land ('Punja') based on market value statements and rejected the claim of on-money receipt. The Tribunal also rejected grounds related to the jurisdictional issue of the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in law in passing the impugned revision order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not raised any query regarding the compensation of Rs. 3,00,00,000 in relation to the amended provisions of Sections 28, 56, and 2(24) of the Act, which were applicable for AY 2019-20. Furthermore, the AO failed to consider Circular No. 8/2018 dated 26.12.2018, which provided explanatory notes to the Finance Act, 2018, constituting a violation of Explanation 2(c) to Section 263. The Tribunal found that the AO had not raised specific questions regarding the applicability of this circular. The assessment order was deemed to be passed in a perfunctory manner. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. and the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Toyota Motor Corporation, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, as it resulted in a loss of tax revenue. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT was upheld.

The Tribunal held that merely accepting specified bank notes in violation of RBI notifications does not automatically make the source of cash deposit unexplained. The AO must demonstrate that the cash deposited represents unaccounted money. Since the assessee provided an explanation for the source of cash, the addition was not justified.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the logo charges and depot service charges were allowable as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision, which was based on prior ITAT rulings in the assessee's own cases.

The Tribunal held that the AO made a mistake in the original assessment order and rectified it through a corrigendum, which was considered a valid assessment order. The Tribunal noted that the corrigendum matched the computation sheet and demand notice.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had issued crossed cheques with two transverse lines, which, according to the assessee, meant 'account payee only' in practice. The AO did not doubt the genuineness of the expenditure or its commercial expediency. The Tribunal held that the crossed cheques, with clear bank debit and credit entries, satisfied the objective of Section 40A(3), which is to ensure verifiable transactions and curb cash payments.

The Tribunal held that the provision for forex loss and loss on forward contracts were allowable business expenses. For AY 2008-09, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, aligning with the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances. For subsequent years, the assessee's appeals were allowed, as the CIT(A) improperly relied on search materials.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order, though signed on 31.12.2016, was dispatched for posting on 02.01.2017, making it beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153(1) for the Assessment Year 2014-15. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeals. It also considered the assessees' cross-objections regarding the time-barring of assessments and the applicability of Section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD(k). The judgment details the arguments on both sides regarding the validity of the assessment orders and the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were served on the assessees after the prescribed timelines, making them time-barred. Consequently, the assessment orders were set aside.

The assessee's writ petition was dismissed, allowing them to pursue a statutory appeal within two weeks, with the CIT(A) to entertain it without reference to limitation. However, the assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay (203 days) which the CIT(A) dismissed in limine, not condoning the delay. The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice, directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were served on the assessees after the prescribed timelines, making them time-barred. Consequently, the assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order, though signed on 31.12.2016, was dispatched to the Speed Post Centre on 02.01.2017. Following precedents, this dispatch date was considered the date of issue, making the assessment barred by limitation for AY 2014-15. The assessee's grounds regarding limitation were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were served on the assessees after the prescribed timelines, making them time-barred. Consequently, the additions made under Section 40A(3) became purely academic.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not considered the merits of the case and had only focused on the delayed filing. It was also noted that the assessee had provided justified grounds for the delay.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed opted for the concessional tax rate as evidenced by the intimation notice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the provision for forex loss and loss on forward contracts were allowable business expenses. For AY 2008-09, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, aligning with the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances. For subsequent years, the assessee's appeals were allowed, as the CIT(A) improperly relied on search materials.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were made beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153(1) and were therefore barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition of share capital was not based on incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal further noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. states that additions under section 68 based on regular books of account cannot be sustained without incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were time-barred as they were dispatched after the prescribed limitation period. Therefore, the assessment orders were quashed, and the grounds raised by the assessee regarding limitation were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were served on the assessees after the prescribed timelines, making them time-barred. Consequently, the assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeals. It also noted that the assessees' cross-objections raised issues regarding the time-barring of assessments and the applicability of Section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD(k). The judgment then delves into the arguments regarding the limitation period for assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the provision for forex loss and loss on forward contracts were allowable business expenses. For AY 2008-09, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, aligning with the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances. For subsequent years, the assessee's appeals were allowed, as the CIT(A) improperly relied on search materials.

The Tribunal held that the provision for forex loss and loss on forward contracts were allowable business expenses. For AY 2008-09, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, aligning with the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances. For subsequent years, the assessee's appeals were allowed, as the CIT(A) improperly relied on search materials.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were served on the assessees after the prescribed timelines, making them time-barred. Consequently, the assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeals. It acknowledged the assessees' arguments regarding the time-barring of assessment orders and the applicability of Rule 6DD(k) to their case, indicating these points would be adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were served on the assessees after the prescribed timelines, making them time-barred. Consequently, the assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were served on the assessees after the prescribed timelines, making them time-barred. Consequently, the assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had issued crossed cheques with two transverse lines, which, according to the assessee, meant 'account payee only' in practice. The AO did not doubt the genuineness of the expenditure or its commercial expediency. The Tribunal held that the crossed cheques, with clear bank debit and credit entries, satisfied the objective of Section 40A(3), which is to ensure verifiable transactions and curb cash payments.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had issued crossed cheques with two transverse lines, which, according to the assessee, meant 'account payee only' in practice. The AO did not doubt the genuineness of the expenditure or its commercial expediency. The Tribunal held that the crossed cheques, with clear bank debit and credit entries, satisfied the objective of Section 40A(3), which is to ensure verifiable transactions and curb cash payments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, while noting the assessee's non-cooperation, decided to provide another opportunity for hearing before the AO in the interest of natural justice, subject to payment of costs.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of sale deeds submitted by the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the AO to examine these documents and decide the case afresh.

The assessee's authorized representative stated that the appeal was not maintainable as a similar appeal was already preferred before another bench and withdrawn. The assessee requested permission to withdraw the present appeal.