ITAT Chennai Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had held that the assessee failed to show cause for the delay. However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation petition and adjudicate the matter on merits.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the reasons provided were insufficient to condone the inordinate delay. The assessee, being a registered society, has a statutory obligation to comply with electronic filing and communication, and no evidence of non-receipt of communication was produced.

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to bona fide reasons. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear, the Tribunal reduced the addition made by the AO from ₹36,21,180 to ₹4,00,000 in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal noted the lack of compliance by the assessee and the request for another opportunity. Considering the nature of the addition, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of an appeal on merits, even if it is ex-parte, and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo disposal.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file evidence and represent the case without fail.

The Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation petition and adjudicate the appeal on merits. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case and file evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a significant delay of 882 days. The reasons provided for the delay, concerning the non-communication of the CIT(A)'s order by a former auditor, were not considered bonafide or reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not properly serve notices on the appellant, as service through the ITBA Portal is not a valid method. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay as the assessee failed to provide a sufficient and reasonable cause. Since there was no adjustment made in the intimation under section 143(1), the assessee was not aggrieved by it.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in revising the AO's order as there was no evidence of the assessee's conscious participation in a sham transaction. The AO had conducted due inquiry and adopted a plausible view, making the revision unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits. The CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of appeals on merits, even if ex-parte, and provide a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have accepted the assessee's explanation of cash deposits being out of agricultural income, as there was no evidence to show it was utilized for other purposes. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal due to the delay. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as an affidavit from the consultant, to justify the delay. The Tribunal found no reason to differ from the CIT(A)'s view on condonation of delay.

The Tribunal held that the AO's observation that the transactions were sham was contrary to the facts on record, citing email evidence of services rendered and training provided by the foreign entity. The Tribunal also found the allegation of fund diversion to family members factually incorrect.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it. It also decided to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the delay condonation petition for the earlier appeal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated all grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it and found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. Therefore, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation petition and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the assessee's genuine reasons, including reliance on a consultant and lack of awareness. The Tribunal found that the appeal should have been considered on merits.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments in another co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A)'s order was set aside for not considering this aspect.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal due to the delay. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as an affidavit from the consultant, to justify the delay. The Tribunal found no reason to differ from the CIT(A)'s view on condonation of delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal due to the delay. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as an affidavit from the consultant, to justify the delay. The Tribunal found no reason to differ from the CIT(A)'s view on condonation of delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the AO's addition of the entire cash credits without considering corresponding expenditure was not justified. The Tribunal confirmed the net profit at 8% of the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's characterization of services differed from the comparables used by the TPO. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO/TPO for a fresh benchmarking analysis.

The ITAT, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter to the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation petition and adjudicate the issues on merits, subject to the assessee paying a cost of ₹5,000/-.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal due to the delay. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as an affidavit from the consultant, to justify the delay. The Tribunal found no reason to differ from the CIT(A)'s view on condonation of delay.

The Tribunal held that since the audit report was available at the time of assessment and no prejudice was caused to the department, the penalty under Section 271B was not justified. The delay was considered a reasonable cause.

The ITAT noted that the substantive addition in the case of Shri C.P. Anbunathan was set aside to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the present matter was also restored to the Assessing Officer for assessment based on the outcome of the remand proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decision in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that while exemption under Section 11 is not available without Section 12A registration, the assessee is entitled to have its income computed after deducting eligible expenditures incurred for its activities, treating it as an AOP. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by the assessee's business and consignment transactions, supported by books of account and invoices. The estimation of business income was found to be arbitrary and without a rational basis, leading to double taxation.

The Tribunal held that interest income and amounts received as refunds and gifts from relatives were not unexplained investments. A portion of the demonetization cash deposits was also considered explained. The tax rate under Section 115BBE was directed to be 30% instead of 60%.

The Tribunal held that the AO's observation that the transactions were sham was contrary to the facts on record, citing email evidence of services rendered and training provided by the foreign entity. The Tribunal also found the allegation of fund diversion to family members factually incorrect.

The Tribunal held that since the goods in transit were not debited to the profit and loss account as purchases, there was no distortion of financial results. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect.

The Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation petition and adjudicate the appeal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay of 98 days.

The Tribunal held that the AO's observation that the transactions were sham was contrary to the facts on record, citing email evidence of services rendered and training provided by the foreign entity. The Tribunal also found the allegation of fund diversion to family members factually incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of Section 148 notices by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was invalid based on High Court decisions and a subsequent Supreme Court order. Therefore, the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be taxed as income, not the entire amount. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the profit element.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of Section 148 notices by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was invalid based on High Court decisions and a subsequent Supreme Court order. Therefore, the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of Section 148 notices by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was invalid based on High Court decisions and a subsequent Supreme Court order. Therefore, the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of Section 148 notices by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was invalid based on High Court decisions and a subsequent Supreme Court order. Therefore, the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be taxed as income, not the entire amount. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the profit element.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the reassessment order was bad in law due to the Assessing Officer's failure to follow the mandatory procedure laid down by the Supreme Court. This included delaying the furnishing of reasons and not disposing of the assessee's objections before passing the reassessment order.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment after four years was bad in law as the AO failed to satisfy the conditions laid down in the proviso to Section 147. The AO's reasons for reopening were found to be factually incorrect and showed a lack of application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional assessing officer lacked the authority to issue the Section 148 notice, as this power was vested with the Faceless Assessment Unit. Due to a recent Supreme Court order setting aside High Court decisions on similar jurisdictional issues, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's action in determining the ALP of commission payments at NIL was unsustainable in law. It reasoned that the TPO cannot question the commercial expediency of expenditure and is confined to determining the ALP using prescribed methods. The TPO failed to bring on record any comparable uncontrolled transactions or apply a recognized transfer pricing methodology. The adjustment was made merely on the premise that the assessee failed to establish commensurate benefit, which is legally impermissible. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that commission expenditure is intrinsically linked with export sales and forms part of integrated business activity. The aggregation approach adopted by the assessee under TNMM is recognized. The segregation of commission transactions by the TPO without cogent reasons resulted in a distortion of the transfer pricing analysis. Furthermore, the uniform commission rate paid to both AEs and non-AEs served as a strong indicator of the arm's length nature of the payments. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO)/TPO to delete the transfer pricing adjustment made by determining the ALP of commission payment at NIL and accept the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the assessee under TNMM. The AO/TPO was further directed to recompute the margins by considering all operating items consistently. The grounds raised by the assessee for AY 2020-21 were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's action in determining the ALP of commission payments at NIL was unsustainable in law. It reasoned that the TPO cannot question the commercial expediency of expenditure and is confined to determining the ALP using prescribed methods. The TPO failed to bring on record any comparable uncontrolled transactions or apply a recognized transfer pricing methodology. The adjustment was made merely on the premise that the assessee failed to establish commensurate benefit, which is legally impermissible. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that commission expenditure is intrinsically linked with export sales and forms part of integrated business activity. The aggregation approach adopted by the assessee under TNMM is recognized. The segregation of commission transactions by the TPO without cogent reasons resulted in a distortion of the transfer pricing analysis. Furthermore, the uniform commission rate paid to both AEs and non-AEs served as a strong indicator of the arm's length nature of the payments. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO)/TPO to delete the transfer pricing adjustment made by determining the ALP of commission payment at NIL and accept the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the assessee under TNMM. The AO/TPO was further directed to recompute the margins by considering all operating items consistently. The grounds raised by the assessee for AY 2020-21 were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's action in determining the ALP of commission payments at NIL was unsustainable in law. It reasoned that the TPO cannot question the commercial expediency of expenditure and is confined to determining the ALP using prescribed methods. The TPO failed to bring on record any comparable uncontrolled transactions or apply a recognized transfer pricing methodology. The adjustment was made merely on the premise that the assessee failed to establish commensurate benefit, which is legally impermissible. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that commission expenditure is intrinsically linked with export sales and forms part of integrated business activity. The aggregation approach adopted by the assessee under TNMM is recognized. The segregation of commission transactions by the TPO without cogent reasons resulted in a distortion of the transfer pricing analysis. Furthermore, the uniform commission rate paid to both AEs and non-AEs served as a strong indicator of the arm's length nature of the payments. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO)/TPO to delete the transfer pricing adjustment made by determining the ALP of commission payment at NIL and accept the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the assessee under TNMM. The AO/TPO was further directed to recompute the margins by considering all operating items consistently. The grounds raised by the assessee for AY 2020-21 were allowed.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search and seizure operations, the Assessing Officer could not make an addition under Section 153A for cash credits found in the books of accounts. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's action in determining the ALP of commission payments at NIL was unsustainable in law. It reasoned that the TPO cannot question the commercial expediency of expenditure and is confined to determining the ALP using prescribed methods. The TPO failed to bring on record any comparable uncontrolled transactions or apply a recognized transfer pricing methodology. The adjustment was made merely on the premise that the assessee failed to establish commensurate benefit, which is legally impermissible. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that commission expenditure is intrinsically linked with export sales and forms part of integrated business activity. The aggregation approach adopted by the assessee under TNMM is recognized. The segregation of commission transactions by the TPO without cogent reasons resulted in a distortion of the transfer pricing analysis. Furthermore, the uniform commission rate paid to both AEs and non-AEs served as a strong indicator of the arm's length nature of the payments. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO)/TPO to delete the transfer pricing adjustment made by determining the ALP of commission payment at NIL and accept the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the assessee under TNMM. The AO/TPO was further directed to recompute the margins by considering all operating items consistently. The grounds raised by the assessee for AY 2020-21 were allowed.