ITAT Chennai Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly found no valid case for the AO to invoke Section 145 and disapproved the estimation of business income at 8% of turnover. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute the business profits by allowing the losses shown in the assessee's books.

The Tribunal held that the impounded material (excel sheets) was inadmissible as evidence due to non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Furthermore, the additions were not supported by independent corroborative evidence, and the statements/letters were unreliable.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material seized during the assessee's own search, additions under Section 153A cannot be made for unabated assessment years. The assessment was based on materials found in a third-party search.

The Tribunal held that loose papers containing rough scribblings, not forming part of regularly maintained books of account, cannot constitute material evidence. Additions made solely based on such entries without corroborative evidence are not sustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the assessee's injury. The Tribunal found the AO's 50% estimate to be unreasonable and lacking participation from the assessee.

The Tribunal found an arithmetical error in the AO's cash flow computation and directed its rectification, deleting the addition to that extent. The Tribunal also allowed Rs. 6,50,000/- withdrawn in cash from a partnership firm as an explained source.

The Tribunal held that since the cash deposits were out of sales reflected in the audited books of accounts and offered to tax, no addition could be made. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the source of the deposits.

The Tribunal held that the impounded material (excel sheets) was inadmissible as evidence due to non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Furthermore, the additions were not supported by independent corroborative evidence, and the statements/letters were unreliable.

The Tribunal held that the impounded material (excel sheets) was inadmissible as evidence due to non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Furthermore, the additions were not supported by independent corroborative evidence, and the statements/letters were unreliable.

The Tribunal held that the impounded material (excel sheets) was inadmissible as evidence due to non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Furthermore, the additions were not supported by independent corroborative evidence, and the statements/letters were unreliable.

The Tribunal held that loose papers containing rough scribblings, not forming part of regularly maintained books of account, cannot constitute material evidence. Additions made solely based on such entries without corroborative evidence are not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that loose papers containing rough scribblings, not forming part of regularly maintained books of account, cannot constitute material evidence. Additions made solely based on such entries without corroborative evidence are not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that loose papers containing rough scribblings, not forming part of regularly maintained books of account, cannot constitute material evidence. Additions made solely based on such entries without corroborative evidence are not sustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the assessee's injury. The Tribunal found the AO's 50% estimate to be unreasonable and lacking participation from the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the assessee's injury. The Tribunal found the AO's 50% estimate to be unreasonable and lacking participation from the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the assessee's injury. The Tribunal found the AO's 50% estimate to be unreasonable and lacking participation from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the non-compliance during the Covid-19 pandemic constituted a 'reasonable cause' under Section 273B of the Act. Therefore, the penalty levied for non-compliance of notices was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the non-compliance during the Covid-19 pandemic constituted a 'reasonable cause' under Section 273B of the Act. Therefore, the penalty levied for non-compliance of notices was not warranted.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It ruled that the SBN deposits, similar to other cash deposits, should be treated as trading receipts from the assessee's business, and therefore, the addition under Section 69A was not warranted and was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal, however, upheld the estimation of net income at 10% of the total bank credits as business turnover.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and had prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the non-compliance during the Covid-19 pandemic constituted a 'reasonable cause' under Section 273B of the Act. Therefore, the penalty levied for non-compliance of notices was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the impounded excel sheets were inadmissible as evidence due to non-compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no corroborative evidence to support the additions made by the AO, noting inconsistencies in the assessee's letters.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee reserves the right to approach the Tribunal if any prejudice arises from the settlement under the scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee reserves the right to approach the Tribunal if any prejudice arises from the settlement under the scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024. However, the Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to approach it with an appropriate application if any prejudice was caused by the settlement under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings and not automatic. Relying on a High Court decision, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-disclosure to be bonafide and reasonable, thus cancelling the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer when the Assessing Officer himself had given a positive remand report confirming the assessee's explanation of the source of investment.

The tribunal noted that the DVO's valuation report was eventually received and agreed with the assessee's request to direct the AO to re-compute the capital gain based on the stamp valuation authority's value as per Section 50C(3) of the Act.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, as the Revenue did not object to the proposal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn under the VSVS-2024 scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, dismissing it as withdrawn. The assessee was also permitted to approach the Tribunal if any prejudice occurred due to the settlement scheme.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the return, noting a reasonable cause. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the case was remitted to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A)'s adoption of an 8% profit rate on total receipts should be treated as business income, not income from other sources, and allowed the grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D could not be levied without the Assessing Officer recording specific satisfaction regarding the initiation of proceedings. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, it found no such satisfaction recorded in the assessment order.

The Tribunal set aside the Ld.CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to allow the deduction under Section 80P if the Ld.PCIT-8 condones the delay in filing the return.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act was a double addition. The Tribunal found no dispute with the genuineness of the assessee's business and that the cash deposits were out of ordinary business sales.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings and not automatic. Relying on a High Court decision, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-disclosure to be bonafide and reasonable, thus cancelling the penalty.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings and not automatic. Relying on a High Court decision, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-disclosure to be bonafide and reasonable, thus cancelling the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024, by filing Form-1, and the Designated Authority had issued Form No.2 for the settlement of the pending tax dispute. The assessee's AR requested to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal and dismissed it as withdrawn. The Tribunal also clarified that it remains open for the assessee to approach the Tribunal with an appropriate application if any prejudice is caused concerning the settlement of the tax dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The ratio decidendi is that an assessee opting for a settlement scheme like Vivad-se-Vishwas can withdraw their pending appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, as the Revenue did not object to the proposal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn under the VSVS-2024 scheme.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings and not automatic. Relying on a High Court decision, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-disclosure to be bonafide and reasonable, thus cancelling the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the intimation order under Section 143(1) was passed on December 25, 2019, and the appeal was filed on December 25, 2021, resulting in a delay of 693 days. The assessee provided the reason for the delay as the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions and the materials on record, was of the opinion that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within time. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the Learned CIT(A) should have admitted the appeal and decided the case on merits. The Tribunal accordingly remanded the matter back to the file of the Learned CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that as per Section 45Q of the RBI Act and RBI guidelines, interest on NPAs should not be charged and reckoned as income on an accrual basis. Therefore, the addition of accrued interest on NPAs was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued by the AO was vague and did not specify the exact charge for levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were considered illegal and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's cash flow statement showing a Rs. 7.44 Lakhs surplus from previous years. Considering the specific facts and circumstances, the Tribunal deemed 50% of the unexplained cash deposit (Rs. 7,02,000/-), amounting to Rs. 3,51,000/-, as explained. The AO was directed to reduce the addition under Section 69A to Rs. 3,51,000/-.

The Tribunal, relying on the Madras High Court decision in Duraiswamy Kumarswamy v. PCIT, held that the requirement to file Form-67 within the Section 139(1) due date is directory, not mandatory. Since Form-67 was available at the time of processing the return, the foreign tax credit should be allowed. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify and allow the claim.

The Tribunal, relying on the Madras High Court decision in Duraiswamy Kumarswamy v. PCIT, held that the requirement to file Form-67 within the Section 139(1) due date is directory, not mandatory. Since Form-67 was available at the time of processing the return, the foreign tax credit should be allowed. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify and allow the claim.

The Tribunal noted the complexities in capital account reconciliation due to the assessee's business and professional income and the application of presumptive taxation. The Tribunal directed the deletion of an amount related to a reconciliation difference while sustaining another amount as unexplained investment, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed when the addition is based on an estimation of fair market value by the DVO, as per Section 270A(6)(a). There was no evidence of the assessee having paid more than the sale deed price.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed when the addition is based on an estimation of fair market value by the DVO, as per Section 270A(6)(a). There was no evidence of the assessee having paid more than the sale deed price.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed when the addition is based on an estimation of fair market value by the DVO, as per Section 270A(6)(a). There was no evidence of the assessee having paid more than the sale deed price.