ITAT Chennai Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, allowed the appeals in the interest of justice and equity by restoring the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting one last opportunity for representation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 13 days, stating that the reasons provided were sufficient and not willful. The Tribunal remitted the cases back to the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation application and pass an order on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 13 days, stating that the reasons provided were sufficient and not willful. The Tribunal remitted the cases back to the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation application and pass an order on merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It held that the CIT(A) was justified in deciding the appeal without a remand report due to the AO's persistent non-compliance. The Tribunal also found no merit in the Revenue's contention regarding the reopening of assessment under Section 147.

The Tribunal held that penalty was not leviable on the disallowances under Section 43A and Section 40A(3) as the original assessment order did not record the AO's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings. For the under-valuation of closing stock, the Tribunal found the issue to be debatable and the assessee's method to be in line with established judicial precedents, thus deleting the penalty on this ground as well.

The tribunal held that reassessment proceedings cannot be continued on the basis of the original notice under Section 148 if the reason for reopening the assessment is no longer valid. A fresh notice would be necessary in such cases.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the additional income was purely based on estimation with inherent subjectivity. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The tribunal held that the doctrine of merger does not apply in this case because both the order under section 143(1) and section 143(3) are appealable orders and can be contested independently. The CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeal as the assessee was aggrieved by the order under section 143(1) and not the order under section 143(3).

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) to reconsider the application on its merits. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee's explanation and the lack of serious objection from the Revenue. The Tribunal also found that the PCIT had not dealt with the merits of the case.

The tribunal held that although the assessee had defaulted in appearing, principles of natural justice require granting another opportunity for hearing. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that filing of Form No.67 is directory in nature, not mandatory. Following precedents from the Madras High Court and ITAT Chennai, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and directed to grant FTC after verifying Form No.67.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee for adjudication, referencing the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Mitesh Impex and the Apex Court's decisions in NTPC v. CIT and Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal held that a claim available in law, even if raised for the first time in appellate proceedings due to inadvertence or misunderstanding, cannot be shut out indefinitely. While the factual details for these grounds were not available at the assessment stage, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's contention against admission. However, acknowledging the need for factual verification and that these grounds were not raised before lower authorities, the Tribunal admitted these grounds and set them aside to the AO for de novo consideration, with a direction to provide the assessee with a sufficient opportunity of hearing. These grounds were allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal deprecated the assessee's nonchalant attitude but, in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity to represent its case. The issues were restored to the files of the CIT(E) with a direction for cooperation.

The Tribunal held that non-production of a log book alone is not sufficient to disallow depreciation, especially when other evidence like installation certificates and sales invoices were provided. The Tribunal also held that the advance to the sister concern was a trade advance, not a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e).

The Tribunal deprecated the assessee's non-chalant attitude but, in the interest of justice, decided to provide one more opportunity to represent the case. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication with a direction for reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal deprecated the assessee's nonchalant attitude but, in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity to represent its case. The issues were restored to the files of the CIT(E) with a direction for cooperation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in allowing the claim of additional depreciation brought forward from AY 2011-12 for AY 2012-13. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on the Tribunal's own decision for earlier assessment years and the Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. Aztec Auto (P) Ltd. The Revenue could not provide any contrary judgment from a higher court that modified or reversed these decisions. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed on this ground. Regarding the ALP of LOC/Guarantee, the judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's final decision on the 1.65% confirmation, but the overall result indicates a partial allowance for the assessee. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of forward contract losses, directing the AO to verify if borrowings were for revenue account or fixed assets, allowing losses if on revenue account. The ground raised by the assessee for AY 2011-12 on this issue was dismissed, but the reasoning suggests a direction for verification. The operative part of the order states that the assessee's appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in allowing the claim of additional depreciation brought forward from AY 2011-12 for AY 2012-13. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on the Tribunal's own decision for earlier assessment years and the Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. Aztec Auto (P) Ltd. The Revenue could not provide any contrary judgment from a higher court that modified or reversed these decisions. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed on this ground. Regarding the ALP of LOC/Guarantee, the judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's final decision on the 1.65% confirmation, but the overall result indicates a partial allowance for the assessee. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of forward contract losses, directing the AO to verify if borrowings were for revenue account or fixed assets, allowing losses if on revenue account. The ground raised by the assessee for AY 2011-12 on this issue was dismissed, but the reasoning suggests a direction for verification. The operative part of the order states that the assessee's appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in allowing the claim of additional depreciation brought forward from AY 2011-12 for AY 2012-13. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on the Tribunal's own decision for earlier assessment years and the Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. Aztec Auto (P) Ltd. The Revenue could not provide any contrary judgment from a higher court that modified or reversed these decisions. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed on this ground. Regarding the ALP of LOC/Guarantee, the judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's final decision on the 1.65% confirmation, but the overall result indicates a partial allowance for the assessee. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of forward contract losses, directing the AO to verify if borrowings were for revenue account or fixed assets, allowing losses if on revenue account. The ground raised by the assessee for AY 2011-12 on this issue was dismissed, but the reasoning suggests a direction for verification. The operative part of the order states that the assessee's appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the provision of LOC/guarantee is an international transaction requiring appropriate remuneration. The assessee's argument that it was solely to preserve India's tax base was not accepted due to the significant risks undertaken by the Indian company.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted Form-3CD along with the return and a subsequent condonation petition for the delayed Form-10B filing. Considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CPC and CIT(A) and directed the AO to recompute the total income after allowing admissible expenditures, pending the decision on the condonation petition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's application in Form 10AB should be treated as infructuous because a final registration for five years was already granted on 17.06.2024. The CIT(Exemption)'s order to cancel the registration was deemed unwarranted.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were from legitimate sales in the assessee's retail business, supported by detailed records like sales abstracts and tax returns. The Tribunal found that the source of the cash was duly explained by business receipts and that the lower authorities had erred in treating the deposits as unexplained.

The Tribunal found that the provision of LOC/guarantee is an international transaction requiring appropriate remuneration. The assessee's argument that it was solely to preserve India's tax base was not accepted due to the significant risks undertaken by the Indian company.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's claim of illiteracy and lack of email access, and the ex-parte nature of both the AO and CIT(A) orders, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity to be heard and submit necessary evidence.

The Tribunal held that only those investments which yielded exempt income during the year should be considered for computing the average value of investment for the purpose of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). Since the issue was covered by a Special Bench decision of the ITAT, the AO was directed to recompute the disallowance accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded by the AO for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it was not applicable for AY 2017-18 onwards. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 270A for under-reporting of income was not legally sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the disallowance was made based on the dates recorded in the audit report without actual verification of the payment challans. The assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the Addl. CIT(A) also failed to verify these payment details. Finding merit in the AR's submission, the Tribunal held that the issue required factual verification of the actual dates of payment of employees' contribution based on the challans. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it fit to remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh verification and decision in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer is directed to follow Supreme Court guidelines for reopening under Section 147 and decide the issues after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the details submitted by the assessee regarding bank deposits. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer is directed to follow Supreme Court guidelines for reopening under Section 147 and decide the issues after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee could not provide sufficient evidence and was also unable to appear before the lower authorities, the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer. This is to allow the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with written submissions and documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's turnover was similar to the subsequent year where income offered at 8% under Section 44AD was accepted. Therefore, it was held that for the impugned assessment year, the income should also be computed under the presumptive scheme at 8%.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Addl. CIT(A), stating that the assessee's total turnover for the previous year 2015-16 was less than Rs. 50 Crore. Therefore, the rate of tax applicable for AY 2018-19 is 25%.

The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to provide submissions and documentary evidence. The AO is directed to consider the Madras High Court decision regarding the applicable tax rates (30% for transactions prior to 01.04.2017 and 60% thereafter).

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to a change in management without proper handover. Considering the assessee initiated the appeal within one month of receiving the demand letter, the Tribunal viewed this as a reasonable cause for the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the case on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the Industrial Promotion Assistance received by the assessee is a capital receipt and not taxable. Similarly, the railway siding expenses were also allowed as revenue expenditure, following prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the addition for demonetized currency was unsustainable as the assessee had explained the source for the actual deposit of Rs.1,61,000/-. It also found that the estimation of income at 8% was excessive and directed the AO to recompute commission income at 2.5% on the relevant credits, considering the husband's transactions and TDS.

The Tribunal held that transactions wrongly reported with the firm's PAN instead of the individual's PAN cannot be assessed as income of the firm. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders, finding no infirmity. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and those of the High Court in similar matters concerning the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided details to the AO but failed to respond to the Ld. CIT(A)'s notices. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh, providing the assessee another opportunity to be heard and present submissions/evidence.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 69A was not sustainable as the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the cash sales, which were credited in the books of accounts and offered to tax. The Tribunal relied on various coordinate bench decisions in similar cases.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders, finding no infirmity in deleting the additions. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and the High Court's stance on similar issues in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders, finding no infirmity. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and those of the High Court in similar matters concerning the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the Industrial Promotion Assistance received by the assessee is a capital receipt and not taxable. Similarly, the railway siding expenses were also allowed as revenue expenditure, following prior rulings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a condonation petition before the CBDT for the delay in filing the return, which was pending. The Addl. CIT(A) had not considered this fact. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Addl. CIT(A) to decide after the CBDT's decision.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had substantiated his claim with supporting documents like bank statements and pay slips. The AO's rejection of the explanation based on assumptions about human behavior was disagreed with, and the addition made by the AO was deleted.