ITAT Chennai Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. Additional evidence (bank statements) was admitted, showing the ₹10 lakh deposit originated from the assessee's savings account. The addition under Section 69A was directed to be deleted, subject to verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained solely on the basis of entries in documents found during a third-party search without corroborative evidence. The seized Excel sheet, being an unverified digital document from a third party, was not sufficient to prove the loan transaction.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was erroneously filed before it. The Assessing Officer's order should have been challenged before the Ld.CIT(A) as the First Appellate Authority. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file it before the Ld.CIT(A).

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal as per law, and the issue of limitation would not be raised if filed within 30 days of the Tribunal's order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that Section 143(1)(a) did not empower the Assessing Officer to deny deduction under Section 80P solely due to belated filing of the return under Section 139(4). The Tribunal relied on coordinate bench decisions and directed the AO to grant the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the enabling provisions for making adjustments related to Section 80P under Section 143(1)(a) were brought into effect only from April 1, 2021. Therefore, no such adjustment could have been made by the CPC for Assessment Year 2019-20, even if the return was filed late.

The Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned orders and restore both appeals to the file of the Ld. AO for denovo assessments. The Tribunal noted that the AO had passed ex-parte assessments with huge additions in both years. Considering the genuine hardship, peculiar facts, and the principle of natural justice, a further opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee before the AO. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had issued defect notices but had not admitted the appeals as defective and proceeded to decide them on merits without specific notice for appeal hearings. Therefore, for a just and proper decision, fair play, and substantial justice, the matter was remitted. The Ld. AO is directed to proceed with denovo assessments after affording a proper opportunity of hearing. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with all evidence and documents forthwith. All legal issues are kept open before the Ld. AO. The Tribunal made it clear that nothing was said on the merits of the cases. The stay petitions were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's business activities were primarily with non-members and not exclusively for the benefit of members, thus failing the conditions for the principle of mutuality. The discount/rebate given to members was considered a business expenditure and allowable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the order of the CIT(A), and restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a mandatory DIN on the draft assessment order and the DRP directions rendered them invalid. The Tribunal noted that while the covering letters accompanying these documents had DIN numbers, the draft assessment order and DRP directions themselves, being 'orders' under Section 144C(1) and 144C(5) read with 144C(10) of the Act, were required to have separate DIN numbers as per Circular No. 19/2019. The Tribunal found no force in the revenue's argument that the stay granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Brandix Mauritius Holdings could be applied, as the revenue had not provided evidence of a stay on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Sutherland Globe Services Inc. The Tribunal emphasized that decisions of the jurisdictional High Court have binding precedence. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order dated June 22, 2023 (and July 7, 2023), allowing grounds of appeal 2 and 3. All other grounds, including those on merits, became academic. The appeals for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 were allowed.

The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. The assessee was granted an opportunity to file submissions and evidence, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they have opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and submitted Form-4 as proof of settlement. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a mandatory DIN on the draft assessment order and the DRP directions rendered them invalid. The Tribunal noted that while the covering letters accompanying these documents had DIN numbers, the draft assessment order and DRP directions themselves, being 'orders' under Section 144C(1) and 144C(5) read with 144C(10) of the Act, were required to have separate DIN numbers as per Circular No. 19/2019. The Tribunal found no force in the revenue's argument that the stay granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Brandix Mauritius Holdings could be applied, as the revenue had not provided evidence of a stay on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Sutherland Globe Services Inc. The Tribunal emphasized that decisions of the jurisdictional High Court have binding precedence. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order dated June 22, 2023 (and July 7, 2023), allowing grounds of appeal 2 and 3. All other grounds, including those on merits, became academic. The appeals for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 were allowed.

The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act in the name of a deceased person, especially after being informed of the death, is without jurisdiction and a nullity. The subsequent assessment proceedings and order are also vitiated and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments supporting this principle.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a mandatory DIN on the draft assessment order and the DRP directions rendered them invalid. The Tribunal noted that while the covering letters accompanying these documents had DIN numbers, the draft assessment order and DRP directions themselves, being 'orders' under Section 144C(1) and 144C(5) read with 144C(10) of the Act, were required to have separate DIN numbers as per Circular No. 19/2019. The Tribunal found no force in the revenue's argument that the stay granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Brandix Mauritius Holdings could be applied, as the revenue had not provided evidence of a stay on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Sutherland Globe Services Inc. The Tribunal emphasized that decisions of the jurisdictional High Court have binding precedence. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order dated June 22, 2023 (and July 7, 2023), allowing grounds of appeal 2 and 3. All other grounds, including those on merits, became academic. The appeals for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's business activities were primarily with non-members and not exclusively for the benefit of members, thus failing the conditions for the principle of mutuality. The discount/rebate given to members was considered a business expenditure and allowable.

The Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned orders and restore both appeals to the file of the Ld. AO for denovo assessments. The Tribunal noted that the AO had passed ex-parte assessments with huge additions in both years. Considering the genuine hardship, peculiar facts, and the principle of natural justice, a further opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee before the AO. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had issued defect notices but had not admitted the appeals as defective and proceeded to decide them on merits without specific notice for appeal hearings. Therefore, for a just and proper decision, fair play, and substantial justice, the matter was remitted. The Ld. AO is directed to proceed with denovo assessments after affording a proper opportunity of hearing. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with all evidence and documents forthwith. All legal issues are kept open before the Ld. AO. The Tribunal made it clear that nothing was said on the merits of the cases. The stay petitions were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to comply with the binding directions of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. regarding the disposal of objections before framing the reassessment order. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the expenditures disallowed needed verification by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the assessee was granted another opportunity before the Assessing Officer to substantiate its case with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had justified grounds for the delayed filing of appeal before the FAA. The adjustments made leading to a demand of Rs. 10,59,390/- deserved examination. The Tribunal set aside the FAA's order and directed it to readjudicate the matter de novo after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had justified grounds for the delayed filing of appeal before the FAA. The adjustments made leading to a demand of Rs. 10,59,390/- deserved examination. The Tribunal set aside the FAA's order and directed it to readjudicate the matter de novo after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond four years was not valid as it was based on a change of opinion. The details of gifts were already available during the original assessment proceedings, and no new material was brought on record to indicate failure on the part of the assessee to disclose facts.

The ITAT admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify this evidence and re-adjudicate the issues concerning "Cost of Management due" and "Deduction under Section 36(1)(vii a)", granting the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its claims.

The Tribunal held that the timelines for filing applications under Section 80G(5) should be treated as directory, not mandatory, especially considering genuine hardships faced by charitable institutions and the amended provisions of the Finance Act.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s directions were not an act of setting aside but a directive to recompute the penalty quantum after considering the relevant ITAT orders. Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that Section 87A provides rebate on the entire tax liability computed on total income, without distinguishing between income taxed at normal or special rates. The assessee is entitled to the rebate as their total income did not exceed Rs. 7,00,000.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10B is a procedural formality and its delayed filing cannot be a ground to deny exemption under Section 11. The orders of the lower authorities denying the exemption were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the JAO was invalid and bad in law because it was issued contrary to the mandatory faceless scheme notified by the CBDT. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed null and void.

The Tribunal held that the consideration reflected in the registered sale deed did not represent the entire investment made in acquiring the new residential house. It found merit in the assessee's contention that additional expenditure was incurred to make the apartment habitable.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without the mandatory prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CCIT), as required by Section 151(ii) for reassessments initiated more than three years after the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the notice and the subsequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had directed the AO to levy penalty after due verification of facts. The Revenue contended this was an act of setting aside the penalty order. The Tribunal's decision is not fully detailed in the provided text, but it addresses the Revenue's contention regarding the CIT(A)'s direction.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee maintained regular books of accounts, which were not rejected by the AO, the cash deposits from sales could not be treated as unexplained money solely on the basis of suspicion or variation from average sales.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had justified grounds for the delayed filing of appeal before the FAA. The adjustments made leading to a demand of Rs. 10,59,390/- deserved examination. The Tribunal set aside the FAA's order and directed it to readjudicate the matter de novo after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s directions were not an act of setting aside but a directive to recompute the penalty quantum after considering the relevant ITAT orders. Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the entire cash deposit cannot be treated as the assessee's profit from sales, especially as a commission agent with low margins. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to 4% of the cash deposits as commission income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal due to pursuing alternative remedies. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to verify the exemption claim.

The Tribunal, considering the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic situation, granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate the claim before the AO. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued by the AO for levying penalty was defective as it failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This omission made the notice bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the addition for the loan from M/s. P. Saji Textiles Ltd. was rightly confirmed as it was found to be an accommodation entry. However, the addition for the loan from M/s. Santoshima Leased Finance & Investment Ltd. was deleted as it was an opening balance from a prior year.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued by the AO for levying penalty was defective as it failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This omission made the notice bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the JAO were invalid as they were not issued in accordance with the e-assessment scheme, 2022, which mandates faceless assessment. Following jurisdictional High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the notices and consequential orders.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to provide complete documentation during assessment and appellate proceedings, decided to grant one more opportunity. This was to allow the assessee to substantiate the nature and source of the cash deposits, considering the bank's primary function of providing credit facilities to its members.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was considered non-maintainable. The Ld. DR did not object to this proposal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that the CIT(A) rightly set aside the ex-parte assessment orders passed by the AO and remitted the matter for denovo assessment.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the Finance Act, 2024, introduced clause (iv) to the first proviso of Section 80G(5) with effect from 01.10.2024, allowing trusts to apply for approval at any time after commencing activities. Since the CIT(E)'s rejection order was passed after this amendment came into force, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the assessee's application, treating it as filed under the new provision.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases. The Ld.CIT(A) wrongly refused to admit additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the land was agricultural land based on revenue records, certificates, and distance from municipalities, as per Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act. Therefore, no capital gains tax was applicable. The Tribunal also partly allowed the appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A, restricting it to the extent of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and Ld.CIT(A) were in violation of natural justice, as notices were not served on the correct email ID of the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the issues raised by the assessee regarding TCS credit, deduction u/s.80G, and computation of interest u/s.234A and 234B required verification.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271D of the Act requires the Assessing Officer to record his satisfaction regarding the violation of Section 269SS in the assessment order. Since no such satisfaction was recorded in the assessment order, the penalty proceedings were not validly initiated and the penalty order was bad in law.