ITAT Chennai Judgments — January 2025

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantees and letters of comfort constitute international transactions, especially after the amendment to Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, adjustments for these are permissible.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The case was remitted back to the AO for de novo assessment after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing appeals, violating the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and hear the appeals on merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing sufficient cause and the principle of advancing substantial justice. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had issued hearing notices which were partly complied with, and the assessee's request for adjournment was denied. In the interest of justice, the assessee was provided one more opportunity to represent their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause shown by the assessee. Considering the ex-parte dismissal and the assessee's claims regarding non-receipt of notices, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the write-off of bad debts was justified and the income from warehousing should be treated as income from house property. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding unexplained expenditure.

The ITAT found sufficient grounds for the delay and noted that the CIT(A) had not considered the merits of the case. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order, condoned a delay of 341 days, and directed the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the matter de novo on its merits after providing a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing appeals, violating the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and hear the appeals on merit.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the write-off of bad debts was justified and the income from warehousing should be treated as income from house property. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding unexplained expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing appeals, violating the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and hear the appeals on merit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing appeals, violating the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and hear the appeals on merit.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay and noted that the CIT(A) had failed to address the case on its merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, condoned the delay of 341 days, and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh readjudication on merits, granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of non-receipt of the show-cause notice, concluding that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing due opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity for the assessee to file a condonation petition with an affidavit for the delay. The CIT(A) is to decide the matter afresh after considering the petition and condoning the delay.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not file complete details before the lower authorities and also before the Tribunal. However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the assessee furnishes all the required details.

The Tribunal found that an 8% estimation of profit on total credited amount was high and unreasonable for a commission agent. The Tribunal held that a 3% estimation would be fair and reasonable for net profit from trading and commission activities.

The Tribunal held that the reasons cited in the condonation application were general and lacked cogent reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A)'s findings were found to be correct and justified.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed a return of income which was not considered by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment under Section 144 r.w.s. 147. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted a delay in filing the appeals, which was condoned. The appeals were heard together, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and de novo adjudication. The penalty levied was deleted.

The Tribunal noted a delay in filing the appeals, which was condoned. The appeals were heard together, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and de novo adjudication. The penalty levied was deleted.

The Tribunal noted a delay in filing the appeals, which was condoned. The appeals were heard together, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and de novo adjudication. The penalty levied was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee paying ₹.5,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority within 30 days. The CIT(A) is directed to consider the assessee's condonation petition for delay at the CIT(A) level and decide the appeal afresh.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the CIT(A) did not provide any finding on the written submissions and other details filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and decision.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present its case before the Id. CIT(E). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the file of the Id. CIT(E) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee a proper opportunity.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to present its case, subject to a cost of ₹.5,000/-. The CIT(A) is to decide the issue afresh after considering the submissions and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had consistently shown income from her money lending business since 2005-06 and provided books of account, including cash book, to support the cash deposit. The opening and closing cash balances duly reflected the deposit.

The Tribunal held that no TDS was deductible on provisions made for expenses where no income had accrued to vendors and no invoices were received. However, interest under section 201(1A) was leviable on actual payments made to non-resident vendors.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the CIT(E)'s justified rejection, remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for reconsideration of the Form-10AB application, granting the assessee a final opportunity. This remand is conditional on the assessee paying costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within 30 days, with an expectation of full compliance to future notices.

The Tribunal, relying on various High Court and coordinate bench decisions, held that the filing of Form-10B is merely a directory requirement and not a mandatory condition. It concluded that belated submission does not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Section 11. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption claim.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 153C due to an invalid satisfaction note and that the additions were based on 'dumb documents' without corroborative evidence. The seized loose sheets were undated, unsigned, and not supported by independent inquiries or admissions from relevant parties.

The Tribunal held that no TDS was deductible on provisions made for expenses where no income had accrued to vendors and no invoices were received. However, interest under section 201(1A) was leviable on actual payments made to non-resident vendors.

The Tribunal held that statements recorded during survey proceedings do not hold much evidentiary value unless corroborated by concrete evidence. The land and building belonged to the partners, not the firm. The excess stock addition was also deleted as the assessee had already offered additional income.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated by the AO under Sections 147/148 were based on irrelevant and unconnected facts, as the cash deposits pertained to another individual. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument to remit the matter back to the AO and upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received on relinquishment of a right to acquire a property is a capital receipt, not business income. The taxability of income depends on its real nature, not its entry in books of account. Therefore, the compensation is taxable as Long Term Capital Gain.

The Tribunal held that since no invoices were received and no payments were made as of March 31, 2015, the provision was merely an estimation. Therefore, TDS was not deductible at that stage, and the assessee could not be treated as an 'assessee in default'. The Tribunal found the facts similar to the case of Biocon Ltd. v. DCIT.

The Tribunal held that no TDS was deductible on provisions made for expenses where no income had accrued to vendors and no invoices were received. However, interest under section 201(1A) was leviable on actual payments made to non-resident vendors.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were initiated during the pendency of the CIRP process, and the NCLT order provided a waiver from all proceedings. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 153C due to an invalid satisfaction note and that the additions were based on 'dumb documents' without corroborative evidence. The seized loose sheets were undated, unsigned, and not supported by independent inquiries or admissions from relevant parties.

The CIT(A) deleted the additions, a decision affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and noted that official government records (GOMs) clearly demonstrated that a different individual held the position of Revenue Minister during the relevant period, thereby disproving the Revenue's hypothesis that the assessee received the alleged payments.

The Tribunal held that no TDS was deductible on provisions made for expenses where no income had accrued to vendors and no invoices were received. However, interest under section 201(1A) was leviable on actual payments made to non-resident vendors.

The Tribunal held that no TDS was deductible on provisions made for expenses where no income had accrued to vendors and no invoices were received. However, interest under section 201(1A) was leviable on actual payments made to non-resident vendors.

The Tribunal held that no TDS was deductible on provisions made for expenses where no income had accrued to vendors and no invoices were received. However, interest under section 201(1A) was leviable on actual payments made to non-resident vendors.

The Tribunal held that no TDS was deductible on provisions made for expenses where no income had accrued to vendors and no invoices were received. However, interest under section 201(1A) was leviable on actual payments made to non-resident vendors.

The Tribunal held that no TDS was deductible on provisions made for expenses where no income had accrued to vendors and no invoices were received. However, interest under section 201(1A) was leviable on actual payments made to non-resident vendors.

The Tribunal held that no TDS was deductible on provisions made for expenses where no income had accrued to vendors and no invoices were received. However, interest under section 201(1A) was leviable on actual payments made to non-resident vendors.

The Tribunal held that the sales promotion expenses were genuine and necessary for marketing non-popular brands, especially since the books were not rejected and similar claims were allowed in past years. The ad-hoc disallowances were found to be without sound basis.

The CIT(A) deleted the additions, a decision affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and noted that official government records (GOMs) clearly demonstrated that a different individual held the position of Revenue Minister during the relevant period, thereby disproving the Revenue's hypothesis that the assessee received the alleged payments.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's legal grounds challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. However, it found the Assessing Officer's order on the merits of the additions (especially Rs. 42 lakhs for unsold plots under Section 69A) to be non-speaking and lacking proper inquiry. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication de novo, allowing the assessee to provide further evidence.