ITAT Chennai Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal found that the reasons for the delay were bonafide due to the pending rectification application. The delay was condoned, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the rectification application.

The Tribunal held that retention money payable and forward contract premium charges are allowable expenses/depreciation as they represent accrued liabilities and are recognized in accordance with accounting standards. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal, following the decision of the Madras High Court and a coordinate bench's order in the assessee's own case, held that income derived by a cooperative society from investments in another cooperative bank registered under the relevant state cooperative societies act is eligible for deduction under Section 80P.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the corporate guarantee adjustment by adopting a lower rate and affirmed the allowance of depreciation and maintenance costs for the aircraft, finding that the necessary documentation was provided and verified.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the JAO was invalid and bad in law as it contravened the mandatory provisions of the faceless scheme. Consequently, the reassessment order passed pursuant to this invalid notice was also deemed null and void.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not objectively and comprehensively analyzed the matter concerning the non-deduction of TDS. It was decided that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case and supporting evidence before the Assessing Officer (AO).

The Tribunal held that the ALP for captive consumption of electricity should be determined based on the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplies power to end consumers, not the rate at which windmills sell to the Board. This decision was based on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, even after amendments to Section 80-IA(8).

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument of violation of natural justice and noted a non-speaking order by the CIT(E). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for readjudication after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not objectively and comprehensively analyzed the matter concerning the non-deduction of TDS. It was decided that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case and supporting evidence before the Assessing Officer (AO).

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not objectively and comprehensively analyzed the matter concerning the non-deduction of TDS. It was decided that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case and supporting evidence before the Assessing Officer (AO).

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument of violation of natural justice and noted a non-speaking order by the CIT(E). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for readjudication after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not objectively and comprehensively analyzed the matter concerning the non-deduction of TDS. It was decided that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case and supporting evidence before the Assessing Officer (AO).

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not objectively and comprehensively analyzed the matter concerning the non-deduction of TDS. It was decided that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case and supporting evidence before the Assessing Officer (AO).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the restriction of the addition to Rs.2.25 Crores concerning the transfer of goods, finding no case for intervention. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s comprehensive dealing of the issue, particularly noting the captive customer scenario and the specific nature of the components manufactured. Regarding management support services, the Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, noting that the CIT(A) had examined the rendering of services and the tax-neutrality of payments. The Tribunal ruled on the additional depreciation claim by holding that while the AO and CIT(A) correctly applied the principle from Goetze India regarding claims not made in the return, the Tribunal itself has the power to entertain such claims. Citing Explanation 5 to Section 32, which allows depreciation irrespective of claim, and the Goetze India ruling that the Tribunal can admit claims not made in the return, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and directed the AO to re-examine the claim for additional depreciation on intangible assets, treating them as part of plant and machinery, after providing an opportunity of being heard. The grounds of appeal by the assessee on this issue were allowed for statistical purposes.

The assessee had filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing Form 10AB before the CBDT under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which was pending. As the CBDT's decision on condonation has a direct bearing on the Section 80G approval, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order after the Competent Authority decides on the condonation application.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the delay was not willful or wanton and that the assessee was genuinely unaware. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the merits of the case and remitted the matter back for readjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Citing a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The AO was directed to accept the assessee's original return and recompute the income accordingly.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after finding a reasonable cause. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to participate in both assessment and appellate proceedings, leading to ex-parte orders.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's ill health and hospitalization as a reasonable cause. The Tribunal found that the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) was not justified as the non-compliance was due to the assessee's health issues and lack of knowledge of online tax procedures, considering the assessee is a senior citizen.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was barred by limitation. It found that the provisions of Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act, which govern fresh assessments after an order is set aside, were applicable, and the extended timelines under TOLA did not save the assessment from being time-barred.

The Tribunal held that the agricultural income of Rs. 4,75,635 was recorded in the assessee's books of accounts and bank statements. Both the AO and CIT(A) erred in taxing this amount as unexplained income.

The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal and condoned it due to the circumstances caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. While the AO initiated penalty proceedings for non-compliance with notices, the Tribunal found a reasonable cause for non-compliance for three out of four notices due to the pandemic.

The Tribunal held that the matter concerning additions of Rs.2,12,70,292/- was not objectively and comprehensively analyzed by the lower authorities. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication, giving the assessee one last opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the market value of electricity for the purpose of Section 80-IA deduction should be based on the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplies electricity to industrial consumers, not the rate at which surplus power is sold to the Board. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to be in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal by the First Appellate Authority on account of delayed filing of Form 10B, without providing an opportunity of being heard, violated the principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside for readjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to intervene. It agreed that the assessee was in a captive customer scenario for component manufacturing and that the services for management support were indeed rendered.

The Tribunal held that a capital loss cannot be carried forward if claimed for the first time in a revised return filed after the due date, even if the original return was filed within the due date but remained unverified. Reliance was placed on the decision in RRPR Holding (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT.

The Tribunal held that the interest payments were not income in the hands of TUFIDCO as it was a government entity and the payments were deducted by the State Government itself, not directly by the assessee. Therefore, the assessee could not be held liable for TDS.

The Tribunal held that the interest payments were not income in the hands of TUFIDCO as it was a government entity and the payments were deducted by the State Government itself, not directly by the assessee. Therefore, the assessee could not be held liable for TDS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's argument that PACCS acted as agents or business correspondents and thus the transactions were excluded from Section 194N was not supported by evidence. The exclusion under the proviso to Section 194N for business correspondents was reversed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of cash deposits made from 13.11.2016 to 14.12.2016 as being out of the cash balance available as on 08.11.2016, which was not disputed by the AO. The AO had accepted similar deposits made on earlier dates. Therefore, the addition was not justified.

The Tribunal held that an order passed ex-parte in the name of a deceased person is unsustainable in law. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded to pass a fresh order after bringing the legal heir on record and providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and observed that the assessee's trust had 34 objects, only one of which was religious. The Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the CIT(E) and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the Addl. CIT(A)'s confirmation of the CPC's action in denying the full TDS credit under Section 154/143(1) was not agreed with. The Tribunal reasoned that since the TDS was deducted and paid from the assessee's receipts and reflected in its accounts, the assessee was eligible to claim the TDS credit. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the TDS claim and allow it in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes only. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide whether the assessee was a commission agent or a trade entity, nor did it comment on the applicability of Section 194I versus Section 194Q, which was observed by the Addl. CIT(A).

The tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated against a dead person, especially when the department was aware of the death, are without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Consequently, all consequential orders were set aside.

The tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had conducted an enquiry and passed a speaking order, accepting the assessee's returned income. The PCIT's conclusion that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue was not justified.

The Tribunal noted the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in the Rajeev Bansal case, stating that reassessment notices for AY 2015-16 issued on or after April 1, 2021, would not sustain. Therefore, the impugned notice was held to be invalid.

The Tribunal held that the new clause (iv) to Section 80G(5) allows applications to be filed at any time after commencement of activities, and this provision is distinct from the earlier timeline governed by clause (iii). Therefore, the application filed on 23.07.2024 should be considered under the new provision.

The tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated against a dead person, especially when the department was aware of the death, are without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Consequently, all consequential orders were set aside.

The tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated against a dead person, especially when the department was aware of the death, are without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Consequently, all consequential orders were set aside.

The tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated against a dead person, especially when the department was aware of the death, are without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Consequently, all consequential orders were set aside.

The tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated against a dead person, especially when the department was aware of the death, are without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Consequently, all consequential orders were set aside.

The tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated against a dead person, especially when the department was aware of the death, are without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Consequently, all consequential orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 42 days was not inordinate, especially considering the assessee is a senior citizen and the reasons provided for the delay were reasonable. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the order of the FAA.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide proof of disclosure and tax payment by the deductees for the interest income. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had multiple opportunities to furnish correct forms and evidence but failed to do so, hence, no further opportunity was granted.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were issued to deceased persons, making the assessment proceedings void ab initio. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in Vipin Walia, Rasid Lala, and Spice Entertainment Ltd., which established that initiating assessment proceedings against a dead person is a jurisdictional defect and not a curable procedural irregularity. The Tribunal found that the revenue's attempt to distinguish the case of Sky Light Hospitality LLP was not convincing as the factual background was different. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by both the Assessing Officer and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment years in question, as they were passed in the name of dead persons. The appeals filed by the assessees were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were issued to deceased persons, making the assessment proceedings void ab initio. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in Vipin Walia, Rasid Lala, and Spice Entertainment Ltd., which established that initiating assessment proceedings against a dead person is a jurisdictional defect and not a curable procedural irregularity. The Tribunal found that the revenue's attempt to distinguish the case of Sky Light Hospitality LLP was not convincing as the factual background was different. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by both the Assessing Officer and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment years in question, as they were passed in the name of dead persons. The appeals filed by the assessees were allowed.

The tribunal noted that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The Assessing Officer's order was not a speaking order and lacked clear facts. The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the AO for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that there was no bar in transacting in SBNs during demonetization and that bank statements cannot be equated with books of accounts for invoking Section 68. The cash deposits were part of the assessee's business activity and not sourced from unaccounted income.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee's claim of document misplacement had some credibility, the entire expenditure could not be allowed due to insufficient substantiation. The Tribunal directed that 50% of the disputed cash expenses be allowed.