The Tribunal held that income tax appeals cannot continue during CIRP, as the IBC moratorium bars parallel proceedings. Claims not forming part of an approved resolution plan cannot be pursued.
The Tribunal held that cash advances/on-money received for an ongoing real estate project cannot be taxed before completion when the Project Completion Method is consistently followed. Income already offered and accepted in the completion year cannot be taxed again earlier.
The Tribunal upheld that quarry expenses represented the cost of procuring raw material under a valid business arrangement. Denying such costs would lead to unrealistic profit margins.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under section 40A(3) cannot be made on assumptions of split payments. In the absence of evidence showing lump-sum cash payments exceeding the statutory limit, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that cash deposited during demonetisation was supported by evidence of cash sales and debtor collections. Once the source was substantiated, addition under Section 68 was unsustainable.
ITAT Chennai held that recharacterization of business from ‘software development service provider’ to ‘contract R&D service provider’ not justifiable as BAPA and TPO’s earlier assessment accepted characterisation of the Assessee to be a Software Development service provider. Hence, upward transfer pricing adjustment deleted.
Chennai ITAT held that an appellate order passed in the name of a deceased assessee is void in law. The matter must be re-adjudicated after substituting the legal heir.
ITAT Chennai held that loss on sale of shares must be treated as long-term capital loss. Wrong accounting classification cannot convert it into a disallowable expense.
The Tribunal found that additions for securities transactions may overlap with amounts already accepted by the tax authority. The matter was remitted to the AO for factual verification before sustaining any addition.
The Tribunal examined whether delay in filing the tax audit report warranted penalty under section 271B. It held that liquidation proceedings and the illness and death of the partner constituted reasonable cause under section 273B, justifying deletion of penalty.
