ITAT Chennai Judgments — November 2024

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to file submissions with necessary documents by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed written submissions explaining the mistake and sought an adjournment to upload Form 10B. Considering the facts and the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted the considerable delays in filing the appeals and the failure of the assessee to provide proper documentation or representation, despite being given opportunities. Consequently, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the invalid currencies could not be treated as income. The assessee also submitted that due to circumstances beyond their control, they could not provide documentary evidence. The Tribunal considered remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted an Audit Report and tender project documents to substantiate its claim as a developer. It also took into consideration a previous order of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2014-2015 and 2015-16 where a similar disallowance under Section 80IA was deleted. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the assessee's books of accounts and estimate the total income. It was held that once income is estimated under Section 144, further disallowances of expenses are not required as they are deemed to be accounted for in the estimation.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts and the estimation of income. It agreed that the disallowance of entire expenses by the AO was excessive and that estimating income at a certain percentage was appropriate.

The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) erred by ignoring the 10% discount mentioned in the same quotation. The assessee's declared income of 8% on the cash received was deemed justified as there was no other material to prove a higher profit margin.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the Section 153A proceedings, finding that the dual accounting system and suppressed sales constituted incriminating material. The Tribunal agreed with the lower appellate authority's estimation of profits at 2.21% on the enhanced turnover.

The Tribunal held that unaccounted sales proceeds could be telescoped towards the source of unaccounted expenditure, and the profit element from unaccounted business should be taxed. Therefore, no separate addition for unexplained expenditure was warranted.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts but agreed with the CIT(A) that disallowing entire expenses was excessive. They confirmed estimating profits at 2.21% on the increased turnover, including advances received, citing judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the AO had considered all the issues raised by the CIT(E) and had taken a plausible view. The AO's assessment order was not erroneous, and therefore, the CIT(E) erred in invoking revisional powers.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the assessee's books of accounts and estimate the total income. It was held that once income is estimated under Section 144, further disallowances of expenses are not required as they are deemed to be accounted for in the estimation.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts and the estimation of income. It agreed that the disallowance of entire expenses by the AO was excessive and that estimating income at a certain percentage was appropriate.

The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) erred by ignoring the 10% discount mentioned in the same quotation. The assessee's declared income of 8% on the cash received was deemed justified as there was no other material to prove a higher profit margin.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from TNEB for delayed payment of power sales is derived from the eligible business and is therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) erred by ignoring the 10% discount mentioned in the same quotation. The assessee's declared income of 8% on the cash received was deemed justified as there was no other material to prove a higher profit margin.

The Tribunal considered the legal plea regarding the validity of Section 153A proceedings. The search conducted on October 25, 2018, revealed the existence of two sets of books of accounts, one for banking/financial purposes and another for income-tax purposes, with the latter allegedly showing inflated expenses. The statement of the accounts manager recorded under Section 132(4) affirmed the maintenance of parallel accounts. The Tribunal found that the seized material, including the tally data and the statement, constituted incriminating material. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under Section 153A was held to be valid. Regarding the disallowance of expenses and estimation of profits, the Tribunal noted that the Learned CIT(A) rejected the books of accounts but found the AO's disallowances excessive. The Learned CIT(A) estimated the profits at 2.21%, following a coordinate bench's order for a sister concern. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Learned CIT(A)'s approach of estimating profits when books are unreliable and disallowances are excessive. The deletion of the addition for closing stock as subsumed in estimated profits and the direction regarding advances were also upheld. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) erred by ignoring the 10% discount mentioned in the same quotation. The assessee's declared income of 8% on the cash received was deemed justified as there was no other material to prove a higher profit margin.

The Tribunal held that unaccounted sales proceeds could be telescoped towards the source of unaccounted expenditure, and the profit element from unaccounted business should be taxed. Therefore, no separate addition for unexplained expenditure was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law because the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment did not state that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts fully and truly. Therefore, the reassessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that unaccounted sales proceeds could be telescoped towards the source of unaccounted expenditure, and the profit element from unaccounted business should be taxed. Therefore, no separate addition for unexplained expenditure was warranted.

The Tribunal held that unaccounted sales proceeds could be telescoped towards the source of unaccounted expenditure, and the profit element from unaccounted business should be taxed. Therefore, no separate addition for unexplained expenditure was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the seized electronic material and the statement from the accounts manager constituted incriminating material, validating the jurisdiction under Section 153A. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s estimation of profits at 2.21% was appropriate, partly allowing the appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts but agreed with the CIT(A) that disallowing entire expenses was excessive. They confirmed estimating profits at 2.21% on the increased turnover, including advances received, citing judicial precedents.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts but agreed with the CIT(A) that disallowing entire expenses was excessive. They confirmed estimating profits at 2.21% on the increased turnover, including advances received, citing judicial precedents.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts but agreed with the CIT(A) that disallowing entire expenses was excessive. They confirmed estimating profits at 2.21% on the increased turnover, including advances received, citing judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the delay of two days in verifying the return due to technical glitches in PAN-Aadhaar linking was bonafide and venial. Citing a High Court judgment, the Tribunal stated that minor deviations from statutory deadlines due to human error or technical glitches should be viewed leniently to ensure substantial justice.

The Tribunal held that the ETP machinery should be considered as a complete system for water pollution control and eligible for 100% depreciation, following previous decisions. It also held that depreciation on non-compete fees is allowable, again following precedent. However, the disallowance for non-credit of employee contributions to PF/ESI before the due dates was upheld, following a Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal condoned the 60-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on the grounds of medical exigency. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had extended the limitation period for filing appeals due to the pandemic. Considering this and the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce necessary documents despite opportunities. However, considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's intent to settle the case. While acknowledging the failure to comply with the scheme, the Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity by setting aside the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, to ensure justice.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to submit crucial documents like books of accounts, cash receipts, and buyer details to substantiate the agricultural income. Considering the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present necessary documents before the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity before the Ld. CIT(E) to file necessary documents and prosecute its case. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not filed the requisite response within the time frame requested by the Ld. CIT(E) due to the Managing Trustee's social service activities and sudden ill health. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and remanded the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for denovo adjudication of the application in Form No. 10AB under Section 10(23C)(iii) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who was also directed to substantiate its case forthwith without fail. The Ld. CIT(E) was granted liberty to proceed as per law if the assessee failed to comply. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's intent to settle the case. While acknowledging the failure to comply with the scheme, the Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity by setting aside the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, to ensure justice.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted additional evidence before the CIT(A) and that the AO had not properly followed principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found it in the interest of justice to give the assessee another opportunity.

The tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E) after providing proper hearing.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's President was on a foreign trip, which could explain the lack of response. The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to file necessary documents and present their case.

The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed hurriedly and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the appeals were set aside and restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed hurriedly and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the appeals were set aside and restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed hurriedly and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the appeals were set aside and restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed hurriedly and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the appeals were set aside and restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed hurriedly and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the appeals were set aside and restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the notices issued via email went to the assessee's spam folder and were missed inadvertently. Considering this and the interest of justice and equity, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to represent their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While deprecating the assessee's attitude, it provided one more opportunity for the assessee to represent its case before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sought an extension of time due to the Managing Trustee's unavailability. The CIT(E) passed an ex-parte order without considering this. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that both the CIT(A) and the AO passed ex-parte orders. Considering the interest of justice and equity, and the assessee's submission regarding being out of station during the pandemic, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that the notices issued via email went to the assessee's spam folder and were missed inadvertently. Considering this and the interest of justice and equity, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to represent their case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have issued a defect notice to the assessee regarding the non-filing of condonation applications before dismissing the appeals in limine. The assessee should be given an opportunity to explain the delay.