ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposits not reflected in bank account details cannot be sustained since the income doesn’t belong to assessee in the individual status but the income belong to HUF of the assessee.
ITAT Chennai allows a partnership firm to claim a bad debt deduction of ₹23.10 lakh, ruling that losses from employee fraud are a genuine business loss. The decision highlights that an FIR and book entries are sufficient evidence.
Tribunal remanded case to AO, allowing assessee to substantiate capital introduced from sale of agricultural lands with proper documents like patta, chitta, and adangal.
Disallowance of ₹28,99,56,987/- towards finance costs on securitization transactions had no basis, as the interest income rightly belonged to the SPVs and not the assessee. Likewise, the addition of ₹1,61,82,000/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE was unjustified since the cash deposits in Specified Bank Notes represented genuine loan repayments from microfinance borrowers and could not be treated as unexplained.
AO was bound to follow the CBDT circular 19/2019 (F. NO.225/95/2019-ITA.II], DATED 14-82019 and the omission/dereliction was anathema to the basic feature of our Constitution “Rule of Law”, so his impugned action of passing the assessment order without quoting the DIN was held to be arbitrary exercise of power and therefore, invalid.
ITAT Chennai quashes PCIT’s Section 263 order against City Union Bank, distinguishing inadequate enquiry from lack of enquiry; AO’s assessment upheld.
ITAT Chennai invalidates reassessment under Section 148 as notice issued by Jurisdictional AO post 29.03.2022 violated faceless procedure.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed a tax appeal by Workenstein Collaborative Spaces Pvt. Ltd., ruling that a company cannot be held responsible for its suppliers’ failure to file returns or respond to notices.
ITAT Chennai upholds a hospital’s claim for a tax deduction under Section 35AD, ruling that a medical director’s certificate and other evidence confirm the 100-bed requirement was met, despite initial departmental findings.
Chennai ITAT rules that S. 194C(6) (obtaining PAN) and S. 194C(7) (filing statement) are independent. A procedural lapse in filing Form 26Q cannot justify a disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia).
