ITAT Chennai rules that RRB Energy Ltd. cannot be used as a comparable due to negative margins and functional differences in a transfer pricing case.
ITAT Chennai sends case back for reassessment as the assessee was not given a final opportunity to explain cash deposits in bank accounts for AY 2012-13.
ITAT Chennai allows reassessment of ₹54.70 lakh cash deposits during demonetization, granting the assessee another opportunity subject to a ₹5,000 cost payment.
Zoho Corporation’s attempt to deduct foreign taxes as business expenses under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act was rejected by the ITAT Chennai. The tribunal upheld the disallowance, citing Section 40(a)(ii) and emphasizing the distinction between foreign tax credit under Section 90/91 and business expense deductions. This ruling clarifies the limitations on claiming foreign tax deductions and reinforces the interpretation of relevant tax provisions.
Chennai ITAT directs AO to review e-notices and deductions u/s 54 in ₹1.8 crore capital gains case, giving assessee another chance to present evidence.
ITAT Chennai overturns AO’s Rs.53.02 lakh addition to J.K. Jewel Craft’s income, ruling that suspicion alone cannot justify unexplained investment during demonetization.
ITAT Chennai held that when the cash is sourced out of recorded sales, the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act could not be invoked since sales have already been offered to tax and taxing same again u/s. 69A would amount to double taxation.
ITAT Chennai held that material/ information referred by AO in reasons recorded cannot be held to be tangible material hence reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act without tangible material is invalid.
ITAT Chennai held that although the assessee company was following the mercantile system of accounting, only real income could be brought to tax. Hypothetical income cannot be taxed. Hence, appeal of revenue dismissed.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee after deleting the addition made u/s 68 after observing the fact that assessee had filed relevent details during assesssment.
