ITAT Chennai Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee had claimed a significant amount as agricultural income, the evidence provided was not fully substantiated. However, considering previous years' income and similar activities, the Tribunal restricted the exempt agricultural income to Rs. 51,10,422/-, bringing back Rs. 4,00,000/- as non-exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the addition of the entire difference in the property value in the hands of one assessee was not justified as all four parties contributed equally to the sale consideration. The addition was sustained only to the extent of the assessee's share (1/4th).

The Ld. CIT(A) held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 was incorrect, noting that Section 12A(ba) was not applicable for AY 2017-18 and the requirement to file ITR within the due date for exemption was not explicitly stipulated then. The CIT(A) set aside the assessment under Section 251(1)(a) and remanded the case for fresh assessment, directing the AO to allow exemption after due verification. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous as it focused solely on TDS non-deduction without examining the allowability of the interest expenditure itself. The PCIT's revision under section 263 was therefore justified.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to depreciation on electrical fittings, holding that it falls under furniture and fittings as per High Court precedent. The Tribunal also upheld the reallocation of foreign exchange fluctuation loss based on turnover.

The Tribunal held that the tolerance limit introduced in Section 56(2)(x) is curative in nature and thus applicable retrospectively. Consequently, the addition made under Section 56(2)(x) was deleted as the difference between the consideration and stamp duty valuation was within the tolerance limit.

The Tribunal held that the Section 148 notice, issued beyond three years from the relevant assessment year, was invalid as the approval was obtained from the PCIT (under Section 151(i)) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General (under Section 151(ii)), which is the specified authority for notices beyond three years. Following a Madras High Court decision, the Tribunal quashed the invalid notice and the subsequent reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the tolerance limits introduced in Sections 50C and 43CA of the Act are curative in nature and thus have retrospective application. By analogy, the same principle applies to Section 56(2)(x) as the amendment is also clarificatory/curative. Therefore, the tolerance band of 5% is applicable to the assessee's case for AY 2018-19. Consequently, the addition made under section 56(2)(x) is directed to be deleted, as the difference between the actual consideration and the stamp duty valuation is less than 5%. The Tribunal noted that the other contentions of the assessee regarding the validity of section 153C proceedings and the applicability of section 56(2)(x) to stock-in-trade have become academic and are left undecided. The deletion of the AO's adjustment for stamp duty and registration charges by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the directions of the Addl. CIT(A) to verify if the audit report was obtained on or before the due date for filing the return. The Tribunal found the directions to be reasonable and in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons to be bonafide. It was held that since the delay in filing Form 10B was already condoned by the CIT(E), the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of the exemption claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to depreciation on electrical fittings, holding that it falls under furniture and fittings as per High Court precedent. The Tribunal also upheld the reallocation of foreign exchange fluctuation loss based on turnover.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The Tribunal also condoned the delay before the FAA and set aside the FAA's ex-parte order. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay finding sufficient cause and a prima facie case on merits. While deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 because the issue of CSR expenditure eligibility for Section 80G deduction is debatable. Since the AO took a plausible view after due inquiry, the revision proceedings were not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the directions of the Addl. CIT(A) to verify if the audit report was obtained on or before the due date for filing the return. The Tribunal found the directions to be reasonable and in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance and deprecated the nonchalant attitude but, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication with a direction for the assessee to co-operate.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to depreciation on electrical fittings, holding that it falls under furniture and fittings as per High Court precedent. The Tribunal also upheld the reallocation of foreign exchange fluctuation loss based on turnover.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to depreciation on electrical fittings, holding that it falls under furniture and fittings as per High Court precedent. The Tribunal also upheld the reallocation of foreign exchange fluctuation loss based on turnover.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to depreciation on electrical fittings, holding that it falls under furniture and fittings as per High Court precedent. The Tribunal also upheld the reallocation of foreign exchange fluctuation loss based on turnover.

The Tribunal held that Article 8 of the DTAA grants exclusive taxing rights to the country of residence (Singapore) for shipping income. Article 24 cannot be invoked to deny this benefit, especially when the income is taxed on an accrual basis in Singapore.

The Tribunal held that the tolerance limit introduced in Section 56(2)(x) is curative in nature and thus applicable retrospectively. Consequently, the addition made under Section 56(2)(x) was deleted as the difference between the consideration and stamp duty valuation was within the tolerance limit.

The Tribunal held that the tolerance limit introduced in Section 56(2)(x) is curative in nature and thus applicable retrospectively. Consequently, the addition made under Section 56(2)(x) was deleted as the difference between the consideration and stamp duty valuation was within the tolerance limit.

The Tribunal held that the Addl. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal without awaiting the outcome of the condonation application filed before the CCIT, Madurai. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a cooperative society and the delay in filing the return was attributable to the statutory auditor not completing the audit within the prescribed time. Consequently, the Tribunal found it fit to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-compute the income based on the decision of the CCIT on the condonation petition. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication with a direction for the assessee to appear and furnish details, subject to payment of costs.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were passed ex-parte. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case before the AO, subject to payment of costs and furnishing of details.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the revised remand report submitted by the AO, which accepted the assessee's explanation. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal observed that the penalty notice was issued for concealment of income, but the penalty was actually levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars, creating a fatal discrepancy. Furthermore, relying on Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal reiterated that merely sustaining an addition does not automatically warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), and such proceedings are distinct from assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's lack of digital literacy and understanding of the process. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the deposit made under CGAS before the due date of filing the return is deemed to have been utilized for acquiring a new asset. The taxability of the unutilized amount arises only after the expiry of the 3-year period, not in the year of transfer. The assessee rightly offered the amount to tax in AY 2020-21 when the conditions for exemption were not met.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from deposits with a cooperative bank, following previous judgments.

The Tribunal condoned the 69-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's lack of digital literacy and remote location. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a de-novo assessment, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

The Tribunal noted that the AO had erroneously treated a savings account as a business account. Considering principles of natural justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the source of Rs. 5 lakhs through the sale of agricultural land in March 2016, which was not disputed. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the land measured only 3280 sq. ft. and that the claim of receiving Rs. 10 lakhs from agricultural lease was exaggerated. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no issue with a senior citizen keeping sale proceeds in cash at home for nine months to meet emergency situations. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the orders of both the AO and the CIT(A) and deleted the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs. The ratio decidendi is that sale proceeds from agricultural land, even if kept in cash for a reasonable period by a senior citizen, can be a valid source for subsequent deposits, provided the sale itself is not disputed and the explanation is plausible.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the lower authorities and, in the interest of justice, set aside the appeal to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the hearing notices were not properly served to the assessee and restored the matter to the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication, granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the lower authorities and, in the interest of justice, set aside the appeal to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Id.DR did not object to the prayer for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the shareholder's admission of undisclosed income did not adequately consider opening and closing stock, potentially misrepresenting income. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal noted that the shareholder's admission of undisclosed income did not adequately consider opening and closing stock, potentially misrepresenting income. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal to the ITAT due to the assessee's lack of digital literacy. It set aside the Ld.CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, emphasizing the need to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- for non-participation before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the shareholder's admission of undisclosed income did not adequately consider opening and closing stock, potentially misrepresenting income. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that promoting classical dance forms like Bharatnatyam falls under the definition of 'education' and 'charitable purpose' as per Section 2(15). The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noted the assessee's non-compliance during assessment and before CIT(A), and set aside the appeal to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the source of funds, including bank statements of the son-in-law and confirmation letters. The Tribunal found that the identity, genuineness, and nature of the transactions were not in dispute.

The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the Ld.CIT(A) had complied with the earlier order in spirit. The AO's order lacked deliberations on the Tribunal's directions, and the Ld.CIT(A)'s order was cryptic.

The Tribunal noted that previous appeals with similar facts were remitted to the FAA. Exercising its discretion in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the matters to the FAA for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the hearing notices were not properly served to the assessee and restored the matter to the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication, granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that previous appeals with similar facts were remitted to the FAA. Exercising its discretion in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the matters to the FAA for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that previous appeals with similar facts were remitted to the FAA. Exercising its discretion in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the matters to the FAA for fresh adjudication.