The Chennai ITAT held that deductions approved by DSIR under Section 35(2AB) cannot be disallowed merely on the basis of survey statements or AO findings. The Tribunal ruled that the AO and DRP exceeded their jurisdiction by questioning deductions already certified in Form 3CL.
The Tribunal held that merely declaring presumptive income under Section 44AD does not exempt taxpayers from explaining massive bank credits. In absence of purchase records, bills, or confirmations, Section 69A addition was sustained.
The Tribunal ruled that an assessment order issued against a deceased taxpayer is invalid even if legal heirs participated in proceedings. Once informed of the death, the department must proceed only against the legal representative.
The Tribunal ruled that delayed filing or incorrect disclosure in Form 67 does not automatically disentitle an assessee from claiming Foreign Tax Credit. Substantial justice must prevail over technical procedural defects.
Chennai ITAT held that reassessment notices issued after three years must comply strictly with Section 151(ii) approval requirements. Failure to obtain sanction from the proper authority vitiated the entire reassessment proceedings.
The ITAT Chennai held that exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied merely because Form 10B was not filed along with the return, when it was available before processing under Section 143(1). The Tribunal directed CPC to amend the intimation and consider the audit report.
The ITAT Chennai restored the assessment matter to the Assessing Officer after noting that the assessee’s condonation petition under Section 119(2)(b) was still pending. The Tribunal held that the decision on condonation directly affected eligibility for deduction under Section 80P.
ITAT Chennai held that before the 2016 amendment, DSIR approval under Section 35(2AB) related to the in-house R&D facility and not yearly expenditure quantification. The Tribunal upheld full weighted deduction despite partial approval in Form 3CL.
The Chennai ITAT held that transfer pricing benchmarking cannot ignore extraordinary business circumstances arising from the shutdown of a major customer. The Tribunal upheld deletion of TP adjustment after accepting that sale of goods to the AE was a distress sale triggered by Nokia India’s closure.
The Tribunal found that the transfer pricing adjustment was incorrectly computed using SEB sale rates. It allowed deduction based on consumer tariff rates. The decision clarifies benchmarking for captive consumption.
