ITAT Chennai Judgments — November 2024

The Tribunal noted that the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order without considering the assessee's written submissions, which is a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 2(15) was not attracted as the skill development program fees were charged on a cost-to-cost basis. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11 or 12 of the Act.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea of depression and business losses. However, it directed the deletion of Rs.30,000/- from the penalty, confirming a penalty of Rs.10,000/- as sufficient.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided profit and loss account, balance sheet, and bank details to support the claim that the deposits were from business sales. However, the AO and CIT(A) did not thoroughly examine these documents. The Tribunal found that the addition of the entire credit side was not justified.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order without considering the assessee's written submissions, which is a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer was vague and did not specify the exact clause of Section 270A(9) under which the penalty was being levied. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were considered illegal and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the penalty levied emanates from the quantum assessment and the quantum appeal is still pending, it is in the interest of natural justice to set aside the impugned order. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to decide the quantum appeal first, and thereafter decide the penalty appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had previously filed returns showing net profit rates significantly lower than 8%. Considering the past and subsequent book results, a 3% estimation was deemed reasonable.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's affidavit and plea for leniency, found that a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- would suffice for not responding to the notices. They directed the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 30,000/-, confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of advertisement advances treated as income, relying on the mercantile system of accounting and High Court precedents. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of advertisement income offered by the assessee, stating it was not a double addition.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee showed an outstanding liability to his brother, which was considered a trading liability and not a gift. The court found that since the liability was reflected in the balance sheet and the assessee enjoyed the benefit of expenditure from it without offering income on its write-off, section 41(1) was attracted. The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning.

The Tribunal noted that the proceedings before the CIT(A) were ex-parte because the assessee did not respond to notices. However, considering the interest of justice and equity, and that additional evidence was filed, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in making additions as unexplained money without considering the entire materials and facts available on record, including those filed with the Settlement Commission as per Section 245HA(3). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had reconciled the income offered in the sworn statement of Mr. Ahmed Buhari with the seized materials and offered it as income before the Settlement Commission, claiming corresponding expenditures. The lower authorities rejected the claim for expenditure, considering only the income offered based on the statement. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issues back to the file of the AO for framing a de novo assessment, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and consider all materials. The appeals for AY 2011-12 to 2017-18 were also set aside and remitted for the same reasons.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had established the creation of the new asset (energy-efficient house) by producing relevant documents, including an affidavit from the builder and property tax receipts. The lack of standard building approvals was accepted due to the novel construction materials used.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in making additions as unexplained money without considering the entire materials and facts available on record, including those filed with the Settlement Commission as per Section 245HA(3). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had reconciled the income offered in the sworn statement of Mr. Ahmed Buhari with the seized materials and offered it as income before the Settlement Commission, claiming corresponding expenditures. The lower authorities rejected the claim for expenditure, considering only the income offered based on the statement. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issues back to the file of the AO for framing a de novo assessment, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and consider all materials. The appeals for AY 2011-12 to 2017-18 were also set aside and remitted for the same reasons.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in making additions as unexplained money without considering the entire materials and facts available on record, including those filed with the Settlement Commission as per Section 245HA(3). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had reconciled the income offered in the sworn statement of Mr. Ahmed Buhari with the seized materials and offered it as income before the Settlement Commission, claiming corresponding expenditures. The lower authorities rejected the claim for expenditure, considering only the income offered based on the statement. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issues back to the file of the AO for framing a de novo assessment, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and consider all materials. The appeals for AY 2011-12 to 2017-18 were also set aside and remitted for the same reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn. This dismissal is with liberty to reinstate the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the issue of working capital adjustment should be remitted back to the TPO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed this ground, stating the assessee had not brought on record sufficient evidence of impact on profit margins. However, the Tribunal found that the TPO's order did not consider the impact of working capital differences. Regarding foreign exchange loss, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat it as operating, relying on a previous decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2013-14. The Tribunal also addressed the customs duty adjustment, noting that the CIT(A) had allowed it based on ITAT decisions. However, the Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not considered the guidelines from the Skoda Auto India P Ltd case. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue of import cost factor and customs duty adjustment to the file of the TPO for fresh adjudication, directing the TPO to examine if the difference materially affects the price/profit in the open market as per Rule 10B(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The AO was directed to give suitable adjustment against the customs duty component while determining the ALP.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in making additions as unexplained money without considering the entire materials and facts available on record, including those filed with the Settlement Commission as per Section 245HA(3). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had reconciled the income offered in the sworn statement of Mr. Ahmed Buhari with the seized materials and offered it as income before the Settlement Commission, claiming corresponding expenditures. The lower authorities rejected the claim for expenditure, considering only the income offered based on the statement. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issues back to the file of the AO for framing a de novo assessment, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and consider all materials. The appeals for AY 2011-12 to 2017-18 were also set aside and remitted for the same reasons.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in making additions as unexplained money without considering the entire materials and facts available on record, including those filed with the Settlement Commission as per Section 245HA(3). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had reconciled the income offered in the sworn statement of Mr. Ahmed Buhari with the seized materials and offered it as income before the Settlement Commission, claiming corresponding expenditures. The lower authorities rejected the claim for expenditure, considering only the income offered based on the statement. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issues back to the file of the AO for framing a de novo assessment, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and consider all materials. The appeals for AY 2011-12 to 2017-18 were also set aside and remitted for the same reasons.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in making additions as unexplained money without considering the entire materials and facts available on record, including those filed with the Settlement Commission as per Section 245HA(3). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had reconciled the income offered in the sworn statement of Mr. Ahmed Buhari with the seized materials and offered it as income before the Settlement Commission, claiming corresponding expenditures. The lower authorities rejected the claim for expenditure, considering only the income offered based on the statement. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issues back to the file of the AO for framing a de novo assessment, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and consider all materials. The appeals for AY 2011-12 to 2017-18 were also set aside and remitted for the same reasons.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in making additions as unexplained money without considering the entire materials and facts available on record, including those filed with the Settlement Commission as per Section 245HA(3). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had reconciled the income offered in the sworn statement of Mr. Ahmed Buhari with the seized materials and offered it as income before the Settlement Commission, claiming corresponding expenditures. The lower authorities rejected the claim for expenditure, considering only the income offered based on the statement. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issues back to the file of the AO for framing a de novo assessment, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and consider all materials. The appeals for AY 2011-12 to 2017-18 were also set aside and remitted for the same reasons.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in making additions as unexplained money without considering the entire materials and facts available on record, including those filed with the Settlement Commission as per Section 245HA(3). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had reconciled the income offered in the sworn statement of Mr. Ahmed Buhari with the seized materials and offered it as income before the Settlement Commission, claiming corresponding expenditures. The lower authorities rejected the claim for expenditure, considering only the income offered based on the statement. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issues back to the file of the AO for framing a de novo assessment, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and consider all materials. The appeals for AY 2011-12 to 2017-18 were also set aside and remitted for the same reasons.

The Tribunal held that the issue of working capital adjustment should be remitted back to the TPO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed this ground, stating the assessee had not brought on record sufficient evidence of impact on profit margins. However, the Tribunal found that the TPO's order did not consider the impact of working capital differences. Regarding foreign exchange loss, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat it as operating, relying on a previous decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2013-14. The Tribunal also addressed the customs duty adjustment, noting that the CIT(A) had allowed it based on ITAT decisions. However, the Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not considered the guidelines from the Skoda Auto India P Ltd case. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue of import cost factor and customs duty adjustment to the file of the TPO for fresh adjudication, directing the TPO to examine if the difference materially affects the price/profit in the open market as per Rule 10B(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The AO was directed to give suitable adjustment against the customs duty component while determining the ALP.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO on account of cash deposits and estimated income could not be sustained as the firm was dissolved and the income was offered to tax by the proprietary concern, thus avoiding double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO on account of cash deposits and estimated income could not be sustained as the firm was dissolved and the income was offered to tax by the proprietary concern, thus avoiding double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs. 14,16,000/- was not sustainable as the revenue failed to bring sufficient evidence to establish its genuineness, and the donors (assesse's father and wife) had sufficient creditworthiness. The issue related to car loan installments was set aside and remitted to the AO for fresh verification due to a deficient bank certificate. The remaining grounds were held to be academic.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's circumstances and the lack of willful or wanton delay. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not addressed the merits of the case, focusing only on the non-appearance. Ends of justice would be met by giving the assessee one last opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the CIT(A) had not considered the merits of the case and only dismissed the appeal on the grounds of non-appearance. The Tribunal decided that justice would be served by giving the assessee one last opportunity.

The Tribunal held that there was a gross violation of natural justice due to the AO's haste and failure to provide proper opportunities and documents. The assessments were set aside and remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that negative working capital adjustment was not warranted as the assessee, being a captive service provider fully funded by its AE, did not bear any working capital risk. Consequently, no further adjustment was required.

The Tribunal held that while an admission during search is relevant, it's unsafe to rely solely on it if the assessee later provides a plausible explanation with supporting evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal found a gross violation of natural justice, similar to precedents where assessments were made in haste without proper opportunity. The Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal found a gross violation of natural justice, similar to precedents where assessments were made in haste without proper opportunity. The Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal found a gross violation of natural justice, similar to precedents where assessments were made in haste without proper opportunity. The Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal found a gross violation of natural justice, similar to precedents where assessments were made in haste without proper opportunity. The Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal found a gross violation of natural justice, similar to precedents where assessments were made in haste without proper opportunity. The Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal found a gross violation of natural justice, similar to precedents where assessments were made in haste without proper opportunity. The Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO on account of cash deposits and estimated income could not be sustained as the firm was dissolved and the income was offered to tax by the proprietary concern, thus avoiding double taxation.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea of not being given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and noted that the CIT(A) had not touched upon the merits of the case. The Tribunal set aside the order of the authorities below and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) had erred by dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of non-appearance, denying the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the 137-day delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) had not considered the merits of the case and the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the extended time lines being January 10, 2021, was not correct and deserved reconsideration. The Tribunal set aside the order of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient time by the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) had not effectively touched upon the merits of the case, focusing only on non-compliance. The Tribunal was of the view that ends of justice would be met if the case was set aside for readjudication.

The Tribunal found a gross violation of natural justice, similar to precedents where assessments were made in haste without proper opportunity. The Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO on account of cash deposits and estimated income could not be sustained as the firm was dissolved and the income was offered to tax by the proprietary concern, thus avoiding double taxation.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) for hearings. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal is hearing the appeal. The specific grounds and the decision of the Tribunal are not detailed in the provided text.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's alternative claim for a 25% tax rate based on turnover less than Rs. 250 Crores in PY 2016-17, as per the Finance Act 2019, was substantial and applicable irrespective of other conditions. Therefore, the AO was directed to apply the concessional rate of 25% along with applicable surcharge and cess.

The Tribunal found that the AO's disallowance of Rs. 5,50,000/- as past savings was harsh. Considering the wife's savings and the possibility of genuine deposits, the Tribunal deleted Rs. 2,50,000/- of the addition, sustaining only Rs. 50,000/-.