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).
ITAT Chennai held that invocation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not justified as AO has applied his mind and revision u/s. 263 cannot be possible for mere change of opinion. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Chennai held that adhoc disallowance of expenses merely on the basis of suspicion without adequate evidence and cogent reason is not tenable in law. Accordingly, adhoc disallowance under repair and maintenance and sundry expense set aside.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposit during demonetization not justified since assessee has sufficiently explained that the said deposit is from earlier withdrawal. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Chennai invalidated reassessment in Pawan Cargo Forwards’ case due to notice issued by JAO, not FAO, violating the CBDT’s 2022 faceless scheme. Penny stock addition deleted.
ITAT Chennai held that invocation of revisionary power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act by PCIT justified since AO erroneously accepted the returned income without complete enquiry. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed and revisionary proceedings upheld.
In M. Balasubramaniam v Federal Bank, DRAT Chennai ordered guarantors to pay pro-rata dues of ₹9.03 lakhs each but imposed 6% simple interest from 2002 due to their negligence in the appeal.
