M. Natarjan Vs. DCIT (ITAT, Chennai) Addition on behalf of undisclosed income of various amounts has been made against the assessee. Before ITAT assessee raised additional ground that addition was made before approval of concerned authorities prescribed u/s 158BG and hence invalid.
In the case of M/s PVP Ventures Ltd. Vs. DCIT Chennai Bench of ITAT have held that assessment could not be made in the hands of non-existing company. ITAT observed that the company, assessed at Hyderabad, has amalgamated into assessee.
ITAT Chennai held In the case of The Continental Enterprise vs. ITO that as per explanation 1 to sec.32, where any business or profession is carried on in a leased building and any capital expenditure incurred for business or profession on the construction of any structure or doing any work in
ITAT Chennai held In the case of ACIT vs. Sh. R. Paneerselvam (Individual) that normally, the sale price mentioned in the menu card would be the sale price of the liquor. However, the fact is that the liquor shops are giving discount on the liquor sold to their corporate guests, walk in customers, etc. for various reasons.
The ITAT Chennai in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Rattha Citadines held that relying on the same information as available on the date of filing original return of income in filling revised return but making a different claim , in the absence of assessee’s bonafide expenditure would be deemed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income making assessee liable to face penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
In the case of M/s. Majestic Exports vs. JCIT, ITAT Chennai held that the loss in the transactions of the forex derivatives contracts will be considered to be the business loss and the same can be set off against the business income.
ITAT Chennai has held in In the case of Dishnet Wireless Limited vs. DCIT that No liability of TDS will arise if the amount of expense or payee is not ascertainable though year-end provisions are made by the Appellant.
G. Indhirani Vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai) The only issue arises for consideration is with regard to levy of fee under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 while processing the statement furnished by the assessees under Section 200A of the Act which was held as unsustainable
The ITAT Chennai in the case of M/s AVM Films Studios held that entire lease rental received in first year of assignment of film rights with a condition that the same is not refundable in any circumstances is taxable in that year itself and cannot be spread over the period of lease.
ITAT Chennai held in the case of DCIT vs M/s. Sri Balasubramania Mills Ltd. that the section 148 could only be invoked whenever there is a failure on the side of Assessee to furnish all the necessary details. But, in this case the details were furnished as relevant sale deed was available with the AO
