ITAT Chennai Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient reasons presented by the assessee. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal first condoned an 11-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding sufficient reason. It then found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the 200-day delay before the FAA, as the assessee was pursuing condonation of delay for the return of income itself under Section 119(2)(b). The Tribunal, therefore, condoned the delay before the FAA and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO), directing a fresh order be passed after the Competent Authority decides on the assessee's Section 119(2)(b) petition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient reasons presented by the assessee. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the quantum assessment was already remitted back to the AO, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the 34-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding sufficient reason. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to file a proper condonation application and to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA is specific to the 'undertaking' and not the assessee. The conditions in Section 80IA(3)(ii) relate to the formation of the undertaking itself, not the subsequent transfer of a running business.

The Tribunal held that the condition under Section 80IA(3)(ii) pertains to the undertaking's formation by the previous owner and not the assessee's acquisition. The transfer of undertakings as a going concern does not violate this condition, and the windmills were found to be set up with new machinery by the previous owners.

The Tribunal, relying on jurisdictional High Court judgments, held that the condition in Section 80IA(3)(ii) applies to the undertaking and not the assessee. Therefore, the transfer of a wind mill undertaking as a going concern does not violate this condition, making the assessee eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal on merits after the decision of the CCIT on the assessee's condonation application for the belated return filing.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed ROI initially and offered no proof of duplicate entries during appellate proceedings. The CIT(A)'s estimation of 1% on undisclosed turnover was deemed reasonable and upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 401 days finding sufficient reason. While deprecating the assessee's attitude, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 as cost.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed ROI initially and offered no proof of duplicate entries during appellate proceedings. The CIT(A)'s estimation of 1% on undisclosed turnover was deemed reasonable and upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in restoring the assessment to the AO without considering the legal issues. The appeals are allowed to enable the CIT(A) to decide the appeals by passing a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's audited segmental analysis, using the internal TNMM method, should be accepted. It found that the TPO's rejection of segmentation and insistence on complete documentation, despite sample invoices being provided and similar segmentation accepted in prior years, was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153C as the incriminating material originated from a separate search and was not found during the search conducted in the assessee's group. Therefore, the assessment was liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153C as the incriminating material originated from a separate search and was not found during the search conducted in the assessee's group. Therefore, the assessment was liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging that the assessments were made on a best judgment basis. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging that the assessments were made on a best judgment basis. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the action of the Ld. CIT(A)/AO in denying the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) was not to be countenanced. The Tribunal found that the condition prescribed for filing Form 67 along with the return of income under Section 139(1) is directory in nature. Since the assessee had filed Form 67 before the assessment was framed, the FTC claim ought to have been allowed. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy (WP No.5834 of 2022 & ors.), wherein it was held that the filing of Form 67 in terms of Rule 128 is only directory and that the Rule is for the implementation of the Act's provisions and is directory. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to grant the impugned Foreign Tax Credit to the assessee after verifying Form No. 67. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reason provided to be reasonable. The Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted multiple additions made by the AO, relying on various judicial precedents, including decisions in the assessee's own case. The AO's action of reiterating these additions in a rectification order was found to be based on a misinterpretation of the CIT(A)'s earlier order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging that the assessments were made on a best judgment basis. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed ROI initially and offered no proof of duplicate entries during appellate proceedings. The CIT(A)'s estimation of 1% on undisclosed turnover was deemed reasonable and upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in restoring the assessment to the AO without considering the legal issues. The appeals are allowed to enable the CIT(A) to decide the appeals by passing a speaking order.

The Tribunal noted that no order of the Ld.CIT(A) disposing of the appeal was placed on record, and the reason for dismissal (duplicate appeal) could not be sustained. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO and, considering her disability, set aside the assessment for de novo assessment by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that both the Ld.CIT(A) and AO passed ex-parte orders without delving into the merits of the case. The Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and restore the assessment back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action under Section 263 was not warranted. It was noted that there was no complete lack of inquiry by the AO, and any perceived inadequacy should have led the PCIT to conduct its own inquiry before passing the revision order. The short notice period also indicated a lack of proper procedure.

The Tribunal held that 'associate/nominal members' are considered 'members' under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, thus not violating the principle of mutuality. It also held that a claim for deduction under Section 80P made in a belatedly filed return is valid.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action under Section 263 was not warranted. It was noted that there was no complete lack of inquiry by the AO, and any perceived inadequacy should have led the PCIT to conduct its own inquiry before passing the revision order. The short notice period also indicated a lack of proper procedure.

The Tribunal held that the TPO/DRP erred in their comparability analysis concerning the transfer pricing adjustment. It was noted that Rule 10B(2) and 10B(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and OECD guidelines mandate reasonable adjustments to eliminate material effects due to prevailing market conditions. Given the severe economic slowdown in FY 2019-20 (AY 2020-21), a like-to-like comparison was necessary. The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to consider the data/results of the comparable companies for the impugned assessment year alone, compared with the assessee's data/results for the same year, to arrive at the PLI and determine the arm's length of the transactions. Regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A, the Tribunal held that this issue was not required to be adjudicated in the quantum proceedings and therefore refrained from adjudicating it. The issue concerning R&D expenditure restriction was remitted back to the AO for verification and allowing the claim under Section 35(1)(iv) in accordance with law, following precedents from the Madras High Court and Chennai ITAT.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action under Section 263 was not warranted. It was noted that there was no complete lack of inquiry by the AO, and any perceived inadequacy should have led the PCIT to conduct its own inquiry before passing the revision order. The short notice period also indicated a lack of proper procedure.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the cash as unexplained money under Section 69A and applying Section 115BBE. Since the income was already accepted as business income in prior years, taxing it again under Section 69A amounted to double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action under Section 263 was not warranted. It was noted that there was no complete lack of inquiry by the AO, and any perceived inadequacy should have led the PCIT to conduct its own inquiry before passing the revision order. The short notice period also indicated a lack of proper procedure.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action under Section 263 was not warranted. It was noted that there was no complete lack of inquiry by the AO, and any perceived inadequacy should have led the PCIT to conduct its own inquiry before passing the revision order. The short notice period also indicated a lack of proper procedure.

The Tribunal held that the AO/DRP had not considered the assessee's claim of the deduction of Rs. 4.02 crores, relying on the decision in Goetz (India) Limited vs CIT. The AO had erroneously construed the deduction of Rs. 567.54 million as towards rent. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for the limited purpose of verifying the correctness of the claim from the records and documents filed by the assessee. The AO was directed to allow the IND AS adjustment towards ATM site rent charges derecognized for Right of Use (ROU). The related grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. The Stay Application filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action under Section 263 was not warranted. It was noted that there was no complete lack of inquiry by the AO, and any perceived inadequacy should have led the PCIT to conduct its own inquiry before passing the revision order. The short notice period also indicated a lack of proper procedure.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action under Section 263 was not warranted. It was noted that there was no complete lack of inquiry by the AO, and any perceived inadequacy should have led the PCIT to conduct its own inquiry before passing the revision order. The short notice period also indicated a lack of proper procedure.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. In the absence of such material, the additions are not sustainable. The assessment for AY 2015-16 was found to be unabated as no return was filed, nor any notice issued prior to the search.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the genuineness and utilization of borrowed funds for house property construction, and for claimed interest expenses. The CIT(A)'s order confirming the AO's additions was found to be without infirmity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the assessee had sufficient reason for the belated filing. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without going into the merits and is bound to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal condoned a 5-day delay in filing the appeal. Considering the interest of justice and equity, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to furnish the necessary documents for registration.

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) without issuing a defect notice and providing an opportunity to the assessee violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter needs to be restored back to the CIT(A) for a proper condonation application and decision on merits if the delay is condoned.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. In the absence of such material, the additions are not sustainable. The assessment for AY 2015-16 was found to be unabated as no return was filed, nor any notice issued prior to the search.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action under Section 263 was not warranted. It was noted that there was no complete lack of inquiry by the AO, and any perceived inadequacy should have led the PCIT to conduct its own inquiry before passing the revision order. The short notice period also indicated a lack of proper procedure.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on incorrect facts regarding the delay and the AO's order. To ensure justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to re-examine the condonation application after providing the assessee a proper opportunity. The CIT(A) is instructed to decide the appeal on merits if satisfied with the reasons for delay.