The Tribunal held that the assessee’s delayed appeals warranted condonation in light of an earlier decision on similar facts. The appeals were sent back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
ITAT Chennai held that there is no provision under the Income-tax Act allowing substitution of the actual cost of land with its fair market value while computing deduction under Section 80-IB(10). The Tribunal directed that deduction be computed based on profits disclosed in the books, as the land cost had already been accounted for.
The assessee challenged an ex parte reassessment order that treated property investment as unexplained under Section 69. ITAT held that adequate opportunity should be provided before sustaining substantial additions and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that condonation of delay by the competent authority removes the statutory obstacle created by Section 80AC for late-filed returns. As a result, the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80P must be reconsidered in accordance with law.
ITAT found that the taxpayer’s foreign investment was funded through disclosed banking channels and tax-paid funds. Since there was no deliberate concealment, the penalty was deleted.
Chennai ITAT held that the enhanced leave encashment exemption limit of Rs.25 lakh under CBDT Notification No.31/2023 applies retrospectively to pending matters. The Tribunal ruled that the amendment was remedial and intended to remove hardship for non-government employees.
Tribunal ruled that market value for captive power consumption must be based on the tariff charged to industrial consumers by TNEB while computing deduction under Section 80IA.
The Tribunal held that the facts relating to delayed revised return in Shriram Investments were distinguishable and therefore did not bar consideration of the assessee’s agricultural land exemption claim.
Chennai ITAT held that variations between Insight Portal data and GSTR-2A could not automatically establish unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The Tribunal ruled that no addition could be sustained without evidence of actual unrecorded expenditure.
The Chennai ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after finding that identical issues had already been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment years. The Tribunal followed its previous ruling on software service payments.
