he ITAT restricted a S.69A addition on ₹1 crore cash deposits, ruling that treating the entire gross receipt as unexplained income was unjustified for a commission agent. Considering the low-margin onion trading business and past assessments, the Tribunal estimated 4% of the deposits as the correct taxable commission income.
The ITAT Chennai rejected the Revenue’s appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2017-18, confirming that the CIT(A)’s instruction to the AO to recompute the u/s 271AAB penalty based on a reduced quantum income (per ITAT’s prior order) is a valid corrective measure and does not violate u/s 251 appellate powers against setting aside penalty orders.
The ITAT Chennai upheld the quashing of a reassessment for AY 2017-18, ruling the u/s 148 notice invalid. As more than three years had elapsed, u/s 151(ii) required sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner (Pr.CCIT), not the Principal Commissioner (Pr.CIT), confirming the jurisdictional defect.
ITAT Chennai sustains 50% disallowance of claimed agricultural income (Padam Kumar Vs DCIT). Holds land ownership alone doesn’t prove cultivation; evidence is necessary.
ITAT Chennai deletes Rs.1.86 Cr unsecured loan addition u/s 68 after verifying director source. Remands Rs.1.01Cr cash payment (40A(3)) and restricts TDS default (40(a)(ia)) additions.
ITAT Chennai rules sale of land 16 km from municipality is exempt agricultural income (Anita Vs ITO). Deletes LTCG and restricts Sec 14A disallowance to exempt income.
ITAT Chennai quashes assessment because the notice u/s 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional AO after jurisdiction transfer u/s 127 was effective. Jurisdictional error is fatal; entire assessment declared void ab initio.
ITAT Chennai held that interest received on enhanced compensation forms part of the compensation and hence entitled for exemption under section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act and accordingly, not taxable. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
ITAT Chennai held that revisionary powers exceeded by PCIT since rectification order passed by AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, order of PCIT u/s. 263 quashed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, held that an ex-gratia payment received by an employee upon the closure of the employer’s unit was a voluntary capital receipt, not taxable as ‘profits in lieu of salary’ under Section 17(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
