The tribunal observed that the liability to pay the Customs Duty had crystallized during the relevant year, as the company could not fulfill its export obligation. Therefore, the deduction of the Customs Duty was allowable in the same year. The ITAT Chennai cited Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, which allows deductions for statutory dues in the year of payment, irrespective of the accounting method followed by the assessee.
ITAT Chennai held that CIT(A) deleted disallowance of interest made u/s 36(1)(iii) based on the fresh evidences furnished by the assessee. However, CIT(A) failed to afford an opportunity to AO to verify the fresh evidence which is in violation of Rule 46A and hence order remanded back to AO to verify the evidences.
ITAT Chennai held that delay in filing of tax audit report due to dispute between the directors of the assessee company is just a technical breach without any malafide intention. Hence, penalty u/s 271B not leviable.
ITAT Chennai held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied for venial technical breach without any mala fide intention of the assessee as tax audit report submitted before completion of assessment proceedings.
Greenstar Fertilizers Limited wins case against ACIT in ITAT Chennai, clarifying that payments made to dealers for sales of fertilizers are rebates, not subject to TDS.
Explore the ITAT Chennai ruling in the V.K. Sasikala vs DCIT case, where the importance of tangible new material in reassessment proceedings has been underscored. Learn how the tribunal’s decision impacts the treatment of reassessment cases in Indian Tax Law.
ITAT Chennai held that once the assessee has discharged its primary onus of fulfilling the three ingredients of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, the further onus was on revenue to make further enquiry. However, since the onus lying on the revenue was not discharged, addition u/s 68 couldn’t be sustained.
ITAT Chennai held that deduction of TDS vis-à-vis amortization of discount on debentures needs fresh adjudication in the light of additional evidences filed by the revenue. Accordingly, matter restore back.
ITAT Chennai held that one delay in deposit of employees contribution to PF & ESI covered by the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897 as due date was a national holiday. Disallowance u/s u/s.36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for such delay unjustified.
Explore ITAT Chennai’s recent ruling in MRS Jewellery Vs DCIT, where they partly upheld the AO’s assessment of excess stock, creating a significant impact on the taxation of jewellery businesses.
