ITAT Chennai Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal held that the surrender of income obtained under duress is illegal and additions based on such surrenders are unlawful. It also found that extrapolating income from later years without clear nexus or continuity is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the surrender of income obtained under duress is illegal and additions based on such surrenders are unlawful. It also found that extrapolating income from later years without clear nexus or continuity is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 by the JAO was void ab initio, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in TVS Credit Services Ltd. The Tribunal set aside the impugned notice and consequential order.

The Tribunal held that the surrender of income obtained under duress is illegal and additions based on such surrenders are unlawful. It also found that extrapolating income from later years without clear nexus or continuity is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that reopening based solely on a survey statement without corroborative material is bad in law. Previous disallowances of 50% were deemed reasonable, and the further disallowance of 25% confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the surrender of income obtained under duress is illegal and additions based on such surrenders are unlawful. It also found that extrapolating income from later years without clear nexus or continuity is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasons attributable to the Covid-19 pandemic and the assessee had demonstrated sufficient cause. Therefore, the Addl. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the surrender of income obtained under duress is illegal and additions based on such surrenders are unlawful. It also found that extrapolating income from later years without clear nexus or continuity is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the Explanation inserted to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, which became effective from April 1, 2022, is not applicable to the assessment year 2011-12. Furthermore, it was held that where there is no exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made.

The Tribunal held that the surrender of income obtained under duress is illegal and additions based on such surrenders are unlawful. It also found that extrapolating income from later years without clear nexus or continuity is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that reopening based solely on a survey statement without corroborative material is bad in law. Previous disallowances of 50% were deemed reasonable, and the further disallowance of 25% confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no merit in the Revenue's arguments. The CIT(A) had correctly considered that the amounts were treated as advances for incomplete projects and were accounted for in later years after resolution proceedings.

The Tribunal held that reopening based solely on a survey statement without corroborative material is bad in law. Previous disallowances of 50% were deemed reasonable, and the further disallowance of 25% confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee furnished primary evidence like supplier details, PAN, ledger accounts, and bank statements, the onus was discharged. Non-response from suppliers or their non-filing status cannot be a ground to disallow genuine purchases.

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

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the revised return was fraudulent. The CIT(A) had rightly set aside the intimation order based on the fake return, as the AO is duty-bound to assess the correct income.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed before it against the assessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144C(3) of the Act was not maintainable. The correct appellate authority was the Ld. CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the delay of 623 days was abnormal and the explanation provided in the affidavit, that the appeal was filed on the advice of the authorized representative, did not constitute a sufficient cause for the delay.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10B is a procedural requirement and not mandatory. The delay in filing the audit report should not automatically disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Section 11, especially when the report was available before the intimation order was passed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 179 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause due to the assessee pursuing alternate remedies. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, to uphold principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the 2-day delay in filing the appeal after finding the reasons to be bonafide. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and directed it to consider the condonation petition and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was unwarranted and unjustified. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the submissions of the legal heir. The Tribunal set aside the order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, holding that annual maintenance service fees are an integral part of software license sales and not taxable as FTS. The Tribunal concluded that the amount received is not taxable in India as it cannot be treated as 'Fees for Included Services' under Article 12(4) of the DTAA, and directed the AO to delete the addition. The related stay petition was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of CSR salary expenses was justified as the assessee failed to prove that such expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. However, the disallowance of donation expenses was allowed as the assessee had already disallowed it in its return and claimed deduction under Section 80G.

The ITAT, considering principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This is subject to the assessee paying costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

The Tribunal held that an order passed by the CIT(E) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act is not appealable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as it is an administrative order and not listed in Section 253(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal observed that the amendment to Section 80G(5) inserting clause (iv) came into force on 01.10.2024, which was prior to the CIT(E)'s rejection order dated 10.06.2025. Therefore, the assessee's application should have been considered under the new provision. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed a fresh decision under clause (iv)(B) of Section 80G(5) after providing a hearing opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the land was situated in a Town Panchayat which was not a municipality during the relevant Assessment Year. Therefore, it was not a capital asset as per Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, and the capital gains were not taxable.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the duplicate appeal as another appeal against the same order was already filed and pending. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings was not maintainable as the issue had attained finality in the first round of appellate proceedings, following the decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts.

The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was less than Rs. 60 lakhs, the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. However, the issues raised were left open for future examination if they arise and the Revenue could apply for recalling the order if it falls under exceptions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the authority to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision (Section 200A(1)(c)) was introduced later. Therefore, the late fees were directed to be deleted.

The ITAT found the assessee's reason for non-appearance before the CIT(A) to be sufficient cause. The tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits, directing the assessee to present its case with evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to record satisfaction or give a direction for penalty initiation in the assessment order, as required by Section 270A(1), vitiates the penalty. The penalty proceedings were also found to be based on a vague show cause notice.

The Tribunal held that the additions were made under Section 56(2)(x)(c) for AY 2014-15, a provision introduced by the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 01.04.2017, making it inapplicable to AY 2014-15. Additionally, the AO assumed jurisdiction beyond the 6th assessment year without recording the required satisfaction.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the authority to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision (Section 200A(1)(c)) was introduced later. Therefore, the late fees were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause and no latches on the part of the assessee's legal heir. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after noting that the appellate order was ex-parte and the original assessment was completed under best judgment.

The Tribunal held that for reopening beyond four years, the AO must record not only the escapement of income but also the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. In this case, the assessee had disclosed the information, and the reopening was based on a change of opinion rather than new material or assessee's failure.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Act while processing TDS statements under Section 200A of the Act is invalid for assessment years prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c) with effect from 01.06.2015.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is contrary to the e-assessment scheme. Therefore, the notice and consequential orders were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, the appeals were allowed. For AY 2016-17 and 2018-19, the appeals were partly allowed. For AY 2017-18, the appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, the appeals were allowed. For AY 2016-17 and 2018-19, the appeals were partly allowed. For AY 2017-18, the appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, the appeals were allowed. For AY 2016-17 and 2018-19, the appeals were partly allowed. For AY 2017-18, the appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, the appeals were allowed. For AY 2016-17 and 2018-19, the appeals were partly allowed. For AY 2017-18, the appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal addressed three primary issues. Firstly, concerning the additions for AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, the Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) found that the absence of regular books of accounts and supporting evidence for the figures in the financial statements, discovered during the search and corroborated by the assessee's statement, constituted incriminating material. This led the Tribunal to uphold the CIT(A)'s finding that additions could be made even in unabated assessments if incriminating material was found. Consequently, the appeals for these years were allowed, implying the additions were deleted based on this reasoning, though the specific reasoning for allowing them is not fully detailed in the provided text for these years. Secondly, regarding the addition for unexplained jewellery (AY 2017-18), the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the AO failed to apply the guidelines of CBDT Instruction No.1916. The Tribunal directed that a standard allowance for jewellery (100 grams per male member) should be considered. Based on this, the Tribunal confirmed an addition of Rs.2,19,385/- for 89 grams of unexplained jewellery and deleted the balance of Rs.7,39,500/-, thus partly allowing the appeal on this issue. Thirdly, concerning the addition for investment in immovable property (AY 2018-19), the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the addition should be taxed at normal rates. The Tribunal noted the absence of material from the Revenue proving the investment was from undisclosed sources and the assessee's sole engagement in business. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to compute tax at normal rates on the Rs.73,25,679/- addition, allowing the ground raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO's calculation method for AY 2017-18 was incorrect and inconsistent with the method applied in AY 2015-16 and 2016-17. It also ruled that Section 115BBE was not applicable for the assessment year in question.