ITAT Chennai Judgments — March 2025

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2015-16, the issue of weighted deduction was set aside to the AO for re-examination based on new evidence. For AY 2016-17, the disallowance of weighted deduction was also set aside to the AO, and the disallowance of non-compete fees was partly upheld with depreciation allowed.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. It found that the assessee had made the claim based on a Form-10CCB certified by a chartered accountant, and the initial year was correctly stated. Therefore, the case did not fall under misreporting as per Section 270A(9)(a).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, as per the request of the assessee's authorized representative and without objection from the CIT-DR, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was initiated after four years without fulfilling the conditions for reassessment, particularly the requirement of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to the disallowance of unexpired risk reserve and the applicability of MAT provisions.

The Tribunal held that reserves for unexpired risks and premium deficiency should not be added back for computing book profits under Section 115JB, as this would defeat the purpose of allowing such deductions under the Act. The CIT(A)'s deletion of these additions was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the deduction claimed under Section 10AA of the Act is allowable, considering the services provided to foreign customers fall within the ambit of 'export of services' as defined under the SEZ Act. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the disallowances made under Section 10AA.

The Tribunal found that the AO had erred in calculating the suppressed sales. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's reconciliation, which showed a much smaller difference in sales, and restricted the addition to the calculated gross profit on that difference.

The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice issued by the AO for levying penalty under Section 270A was vague and did not specify the exact clause of sub-section (9) that was attracted. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were deemed illegal and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The salary disallowance was deleted as the assessee provided sufficient details of consolidated payments to the bank for disbursement to beneficiaries.

The Tribunal held that reserves for unexpired risks and premium deficiency should not be added back for computing book profits under Section 115JB, as this would defeat the purpose of allowing such deductions under the Act. The CIT(A)'s deletion of these additions was confirmed.

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case before the AO, subject to payment of costs.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. It directed that if the DVO provides a valuation report, it should be adopted. If the DVO report is not received, the assessee is permitted to submit an independent valuation report for the apartment within six months from the order's receipt, which the AO shall then adopt.

The Tribunal held that reserves for unexpired risks and premium deficiency should not be added back for computing book profits under Section 115JB, as this would defeat the purpose of allowing such deductions under the Act. The CIT(A)'s deletion of these additions was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that reserves for unexpired risks and premium deficiency should not be added back for computing book profits under Section 115JB, as this would defeat the purpose of allowing such deductions under the Act. The CIT(A)'s deletion of these additions was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that reserves for unexpired risks and premium deficiency should not be added back for computing book profits under Section 115JB, as this would defeat the purpose of allowing such deductions under the Act. The CIT(A)'s deletion of these additions was confirmed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause for the belated filing. While deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, the Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication in the interest of justice and equity.

The Tribunal found that the AO had erred in calculating the suppressed sales. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's reconciliation, which showed a much smaller difference in sales, and restricted the addition to the calculated gross profit on that difference.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's explanation regarding the auditor's condition but deprecated the non-response. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent its case before the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's nonchalant attitude but, in the interest of justice and equity, granted one more opportunity to the assessee. The issues were restored to the files of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation of past savings of Rs. 3,00,000 is acceptable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a senior citizen and has been filing regular income tax returns. While the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) had not accepted the assessee's explanation of past savings for the entire amount withdrawn (Rs. 10,00,000 in November 2016), the Tribunal found the specific amount of Rs. 3,00,000 to be acceptable as past savings. The reasoning was based on the assessee's status as a senior citizen and consistent return filing. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 confirmed by the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) was deleted. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that since the AO considered the returned income as a starting point for computation, the admitted tax liability was deemed to have been paid. Therefore, the assessee complied with Section 249(4)(b).

The Tribunal held that the orders were passed ex-parte and, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the AO, subject to payment of costs.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine, considering the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods due to Covid-19. The appeal was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the return of income was subsequently condoned by the CCIT. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter to the AO to examine and grant the deduction under Section 80P in accordance with law.

The tribunal noted a delay of 161 days in filing the appeal, which was attributed to the sudden departure of accounting personnel and subsequent difficulty in retrieving documents. The tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging that the delay was not wilful and the assessee has now engaged external consultants. The tribunal also observed that the lower authorities did not delve into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that settlement deeds between brothers, intended to prevent disputes and maintain family peace, do not constitute a 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, capital gains tax cannot be levied on such transactions.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(C) were not sustainable. They followed a previous decision of a coordinate bench which had remitted the issue of expenditure to earn interest income for de novo adjudication, and found that the assessee should not be put in a worse position and the revenue cannot change its stand.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(C) were not sustainable. They followed a previous decision of a coordinate bench which had remitted the issue of expenditure to earn interest income for de novo adjudication, and found that the assessee should not be put in a worse position and the revenue cannot change its stand.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(C) were not sustainable. They followed a previous decision of a coordinate bench which had remitted the issue of expenditure to earn interest income for de novo adjudication, and found that the assessee should not be put in a worse position and the revenue cannot change its stand.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(C) were not sustainable. They followed a previous decision of a coordinate bench which had remitted the issue of expenditure to earn interest income for de novo adjudication, and found that the assessee should not be put in a worse position and the revenue cannot change its stand.

The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the turnover and income tax return, and bank receipts were considered as turnover. The Tribunal found the AO's contradiction in not accepting the sale consideration as genuine. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for the deposits and deleted both additions.

The Tribunal restored the issue of PF contribution to the AO for verification of the actual payment date, directing that if paid within the due date, it should be allowed as a deduction. The addition for interest paid under Section 201(1A) was confirmed, relying on jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court decisions that such interest is not a deductible business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the assessee filed the return of income well within the extended period of limitation. Therefore, the AO, CPC was directed to allow the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) as claimed by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(c)(ii) as an inadvertent mistake and that the income from running Fair Price Shops was attributable to the society's activities. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the turnover and income tax return, and bank receipts were considered as turnover. The Tribunal found the AO's contradiction in not accepting the sale consideration as genuine. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for the deposits and deleted both additions.

The Tribunal found that the assessee, a long-time coconut trader, could explain Rs. 4,50,000 of the cash advance from business savings, despite being a non-filer of income tax returns. However, the claim of receiving money from his wife and parents was unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the addition from Rs. 8,00,000 (confirmed by CIT(A)) to Rs. 4,50,000.

The Tribunal noted that the penalty order might not have been delivered to the assessee's email ID and a screenshot was produced as proof. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the CIT(A) to reconsider the condonation of delay and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not oppose the assessee's request. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits as a gold loan. The gold loan certificates produced were matured before the relevant financial year and lacked crucial details like disbursement dates and mode.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the reasons as sufficient cause. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the AO for denovo assessment on merits.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the assessee had valid approval under Section 12AA for the assessment year 2022-23. Since the provisional approval was not retrospective, the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal while the condonation petition was awaiting a decision from the CIT(E) under Section 119(2). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case for a fresh adjudication by the CIT(A) after the CIT(E) disposes of the condonation petition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the source of funds, including loans from family members, which the Assessing Officer had failed to consider. Therefore, the addition of ₹8,30,000/- was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that if no addition was made in the assessment order and the income was assessed at Nil, the computation of tax on a different income amount is not justified. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be free from infirmity.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee is engaged in the egg trading business, they have not maintained books of accounts. The CIT(A) did not provide specific reasons for rejecting the explanation regarding ATM cash withdrawals. The Tribunal estimated the assessee's income at 12% of the deposit.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of profit at 10% was excessive and directed to adopt 8%. Regarding additions of interest, balance, and peak credits, the Tribunal found that some accounts related to HUF and the assessee's wife, thus restoring these issues to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting sufficient cause for the belated filing. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to represent their case, as the CIT(E) had passed ex-parte orders due to non-response to notices.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting sufficient cause for the belated filing. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to represent their case, as the CIT(E) had passed ex-parte orders due to non-response to notices.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the withdrawals when adding the entire cash deposit as income. Since the assessee's financials were accepted and business income was reported, treating the turnover as unexplained money was not justified.